Having now carefully reviewed Sen. Specter’s proposed legislation to amend FISA (rather than just the amazingly incomplete and even misleading description of the legislation from yesterday's Washington Post article), I can say with confidence that neither this bill nor any modified version of it is going to be even remotely acceptable to the Bush Administration. And, in ways that may (or may not) be intended by Specter, this proposed legislation -- which the Administration is sure to reject -- can achieve the critical goal of highlighting the Administration's true motives in violating FISA.
As I have argued many times, this scandal arose not because the Administration has adopted some radical views specifically about its eavesdropping powers, but instead, this scandal, at its core, is based on the fact that the Administration has embraced the general theory that the President has the right to make decisions about all matters concerning national security without any limitation or "interference" from the Congress or the courts. The Administration did not eavesdrop in violation of FISA because it believed that the FISA standards were too restrictive or that the FISA process was too cumbersome. It eavesdropped outside of FISA because it believes it has the power to eavesdrop (or do anything else relating to national security) in total secrecy, without any judicial or Congressional oversight and without having to justify its actions to anyone.
For that reason, any legislation (such as Specter's) which simply liberalizes FISA standards but still requires judicial approval as well as judicial and Congressional oversight will be unacceptable to the Administration. The Administration has been and still is defending a general theory of unchecked Executive power, not a theory of eavesdropping. They don't care about tinkering with FISA standards. They care about the power to make national security decisions (including, but not limited to, eavesdropping) without any oversight or limitation. As a result, the Specter legislation will not be any more acceptable to them than the current FISA legislation is, and their rejection of it will only serve to highlight just how radical the Administration's position is -- something which, in my view, is a development that ought to be welcomed and encouraged.
While it is true that, as Marty Lederman noted yesterday, the burden which the Administration would have to meet in order to eavesdrop under the Specter legislation would be substantially lowered as compared to what FISA currently requires, it is also true that the legislation provides meaningful – one could even say stringent – mechanisms for both judicial and Congressional oversight, and vests the FISA court with rather broad discretion to approve or reject the eavesdropping programs submitted by the Administration. For that reason, this bill is far from some magic bullet that will quietly resolve this scandal to the satisfaction of the Administration, because I do not believe the Administration can or will accept this legislation.
I want to first summarize the important highlights of this proposed legislation and then describe why I believe quite strongly that this legislation will not resolve anything and may even be quite beneficial in pushing this scandal forward. In sum, because the legislation does provide some meaningful oversight and some substantive restrictions on the President’s ability to eavesdrop on Americans, I don’t think the legislation itself is as pernicious as Marty Lederman suggests and I do not think the Administration will ever accept it.
Highlights of Specter's proposed legislation
In essence, Specter’s proposed legislation abolishes FISA’s requirement that FISA warrants be obtained for each eavesdropping target. Instead, the Administration would be free to eavesdrop without warrants as part of any warrantless eavesdropping program provided that it obtains permission for each such program from the FISA court -- permission which it must obtain every 45 days (Sec. 702(a)).
For any warrantless eavesdropping program the Administration wishes to implement, the Attorney General is required to submit an affidavit to the FISA court every 45 days detailing a wide range of information about the program (sec. 703(a)(1-14)), including:
(4) a statement that the surveillance sought "cannot be obtained by conventional investigative techniques" or by obtaining a FISA warrant;
(6) "the means and operational procedures by which the surveillance will be executed";
(7) a "statement of the facts and circumstances . . . to justify the belief that at least one of the participants in the communications to be intercepted" is an agent of a foreign power" or a "person who has had communication with the foreign power" and,
(14(D)) "the identity, if known, or a description of the United States persons whose communications. . . were intercepted by the electronic surveillance program."
Even under such warrantless eavesdropping programs, surveillance of a person without a warrant is authorized only for 90 days, after which a warrant is required (Sec. 703(a)(12)).
Specter’s bill requires submission to the FISA court for approval of all warrantless eavesdropping programs -- i.e., not only the specific warrantless eavesdropping program which the New York Times disclosed, but any and all currently illegal eavesdropping programs. It thus requires FISA court approval of the program "sometimes referred to as the ‘Terrorist Surveillance Program’ and discussed by the Attorney General before the Committee on the Judiciary . . . on January 6, 2006," and further requires "approval of any other electronic surveillance programs in existence on the date of enactment of this title that have not been submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court." Sec. 702(e)(2).
For each program for which the Administration seeks approval, the FISA court is required to authorize the program if, in essence, it finds (Sec. 704(a)(2-3)) that the eavesdropping program is consistent with constitutional guarantees (i.e., the Fourth Amendment) and that:
there is probable cause to believe that the electronic surveillance program will intercept communications of the foreign power or agent of a foreign power specified in the application, or a person who has had communication with the foreign power or agent of a foreign power specified in the application.
But critically, beyond this provision, the legislation vests substantial discretion in the FISA court to determine "whether the implementation of the electronic surveillance program supports approval of the application . . . " (Sec. 704(b)).
In other words, the FISA court is required to compare the information obtained by the program to be approved for three prior 45-day periods to determine that it has been implemented in accordance with the proposal submitted to the FISA court by the Administration. The FISA court may approve of the program only if it finds that the "benefits of the electronic surveillance program" justifies its authorization, and that it is being implemented consistently with the proposal previously submitted to the FISA court by the Administration. If it does not so conclude, it can (and must) reject the application. That is rather substantial and broad discretion to vest in the FISA court.
There is also a provision in the legislation for Congressional oversight. Section 705 requires submission of a detailed report to the Chairs and ranking members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees every 45 days. The report must include a description of the information obtained by the program and the means and procedures by which the information was obtained.
A few other notes about the legislation:
(a) it allows warrantless eavesdropping programs not only for international calls from or to the U.S., but purely domestic communications as well;
(b) it expressly excludes from the approval requirement pure data mining activities or the obtaining of information reflecting the details of one’s communications short of the content of the communications -- i.e., the requirements "do not apply to information identifying the sender, origin or recipient of the electronic communications . . . that is obtained without review of the substance of the electronic communication." Sec. 702(d)(2); and,
(c) this legislation is clearly intended to supplant, not supplement, Specter’s prior announced intention to require submission to the FISA court of the question of the program’s legality.
The Specter proposal will resolve nothing and may even be beneficial.
An analysis of Specter’s legislation must begin with the still-staggering observation that this legislation would become effective not merely by Congress enacting it (even over a veto), but instead, only by the President agreeing to be bound by the law.
In our country today, having Congress enact legislation is no longer enough for a bill to become an actual, binding law. What is now required as well is that the Administration agree to be bound by the legislation, because we currently live in a country where -- with regard to national security -- the President believes he has the power to obey only those laws that he agrees to obey (while having the power to break those laws which he does not agree to obey).
The Administration, of course, is already violating the current Congressional statute designed to regulate its eavesdropping activities and it has stated that it has the power to do so. Thus, the only way this legislation would ever matter is if the Administration agrees to adhere to this law.
In sum, under our current system of Government, what used to be called a "law" is now more like a contractual offer or a suggestion. When the American people pass a law through our Congress, we have to hope that the President will agree to obey it. But as the President has repeatedly made clear, he believes he does not have to and he may decide – in secret – to violate the law. That’s the profound crisis and scandal plaguing our country that few seem to want to acknowledge.
Beyond this always-paramount crisis is the fact that the Administration, in light of the positions it has emphatically staked out, cannot possibly accept the meaningful limitations and oversight contained in the Specter proposal. The Administration has repeatedly claimed that national security requires that it be able to eavesdrop with total secrecy and without any limitations from the courts or Congress. It therefore cannot and will not accept a framework which imposes such limitations. The Administration's position will surely be similar to the comment made here last night by the bellwether Bush loyalist Bart:
No, its more unconstitutional overreach by the Congress. If I were the AG, I would recommend the President veto the law, ignore it if the veto was overridden and let the courts settle the constitutionality of FISA.
The Administration has another, independent problem in accepting anything like the Specter legislation. If the Administration accepts these FISA revisions, the glaring question will remain as to why the Administration did not simply seek these revisions previously from the GOP-controlled Congress instead of violating the law in secret. Accepting FISA revisions now will make clear that there was never a need to violate the law; the Administration simply could have requested changes to FISA and still eavesdropped in accordance with the law.
For these reasons, I believe that this legislation could actually achieve a good result for this scandal – in a sense, it calls the Administration’s bluff. From the beginning of this scandal, the Administration has claimed that it eavesdropped outside of FISA because the FISA standards are too restrictive and the FISA process too cumbersome to enable the eavesdropping it wants.
But the falsity of that excuse has been apparent from the beginning – because FISA is incredibly permissive, because the FISA court has rubber-stamped virtually every application it received, and because the Administration could have easily had Congress make any liberalizing revisions it wanted to FISA, but it never did so, opting instead to ignore the entire FISA framework when eavesdropping.
The reality that has long been apparent is that the Administration did not want – and still does not want – to have any oversight at all, or any approval requirements for its eavesdropping activities. Instead, it insists on the power to eavesdrop in secret, without anyone knowing whose communications it is intercepting and without having to justify the eavesdropping to anyone, let alone to some unelected judges.
The Administration does not care about loosening FISA standards and it never did. That’s why this Specter legislation does nothing for it. It cares only about one thing: the principle that the President is free to act without interference from Congress or courts when it comes to making decisions broadly relating to national security. Anything that undermines or negates that unchecked, unilateral power will be equally unacceptable to the White House.
As I’ve argued many times, this scandal really has nothing to do with the President’s eavesdropping powers. It has to do with the fact that the Bush Administration has embraced and insists upon implementing a system of Government where the President can act without limitation from the courts or the Congress. Its conduct in violating FISA is not due to any specific eavesdropping theories, but instead is a manifestation of those overarching theories of unchecked executive power.
Whether the Administration also violated FISA because it wants to eavesdrop in a way that is improper and abusive, or simply because they will not compromise the principal that they have the power to act without interference from the courts or Congress, the Specter legislation – or any framework which provides for any substantive oversight and limitation on its eavesdropping power – will never be, and can never be, acceptable to the Administration.
The Administration’s rejection of this liberalized FISA framework will reveal its true motives in violating FISA. The Administration did not eavesdrop outside of FISA because FISA is too cumbersome or restrictive. It eavesdropped outside of FISA because it does not recognize the concept of checks and balances on which our country is based, and it insists upon the unilateral and unchecked power to eavesdrop (and to do anything else broadly relating to national security) without any oversight or checks at all.
That startling fact needs more attention. What will surely be the Administration’s emphatic rejection of the Specter legislation will illustrate the Administration’s true motives in violating FISA and the radical nature of its beliefs about its own power. We need to have the debate over the Administration's seizure of unchecked power out in the open. To the extent the Specter legislation can accomplish that, it ought to be welcomed.
UPDATE: It is worth remembering that Congress, as part of the Patriot Act, gave the Administration all of the FISA amendments it asked for to liberalize FISA, and the Administration -- at roughly the same time -- still went ahead and violated FISA by eavesdropping outside of its framework. That fact alone ought to demonstrate that the Administration is not and has never been interested in liberalizing FISA. The Administration is interested in solidifying its law-breaking powers and insisting on the right to act without having to adhere to the law.
This was my reaction too, that the Specter stuff can actually provoke the show-down between the courts, Congress and the Administration. That's what we need. I say - let's have at it.
ReplyDeleteglen: thank you for reading the primary material and explaining it so well.
ReplyDeleteone thing that bothers me - about specter’s proposed legislation as well as the current situation - is that what are the enforcement mechanisms? the bush administration can't violate FISA (or any new legislation) on it's own. the NSA (or other administration intelligence organization) need the cooperation of our telcos and isps.
right now, i can't get a straight answer from my isp with regards to their participation with the NSA outside of FISA requirements. what's to prevent them from cooperation with whatever the bush administration wants to do - regardless of the law?
"What will surely be the Administration’s emphatic rejection of the Specter legislation will illustrate the Administration’s true motives in violating FISA and the radical nature of its beliefs about its own power. We need to have the debate over the Administration's seizure of unchecked power out in the open. To the extent the Specter legislation can accomplish that, it ought to be welcome."
ReplyDeleteWe already know the Administration's true motives and its beliefs about its own power. Regardless of the side show that may accompany the debate and eventual passage and signing statement, Bush will operate exactly as he has under the current legislation. He is on a mission from god. Until the press, the American people and the Congress have the courage to demand that he be held to account in the courts, he will continue to shred the Constitution of the United States. We could start that process today, without any new legislation. If we aren't willing to do it now, I don't expect to see it happen simply because we have another law on the books.
Glenn seems to be quite confident that the administration will reject this. I’m not so sure.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I’m missing something here. What’s to keep the administration from accepting this legislation, but doing so with a “Presidential finding” that says, in effect, that he does not agree to be bound by this law?
In other words, do exactly what he did with McCain’s legislation on “torture” – that effectively put the issue behind Bush, made McCain look good, but did nothing to prevent the administration from actually engaging in torture.
Somehow, I see the same thing happening with Spector’s proposal. If this legislation would become effective “only by the President agreeing to be bound by the law” then what in this legislation would do that? I’m not seeing it.
I don’t see anything that would keep the President from “accepting” it, but at the same time, insisting not to be bound by it.
This comment "but instead, only by the President agreeing to be bound by the law." is at the heart of our whole governmental breakdown. You only have to look at the "nuclear option" of the filibuster to see it. I did not realize how fragile our form of government was until I asked a law professor why the issue of constitutionality was a problem concerning a filibuster. After all, just get a ruling from the Supreme Court. Only, the Supreme Court won't interfere in such issues. Thus, it all comes down to a gentleman's agreement. If one side decides not to follow the agreed upon rule, then it's game over. That is, if the repubs decide to no longer abide by the rule agreed upon, then there is free rien by those who are in a controlling position to not follow the rules. In this case, a simple majority instead of a super majority.
ReplyDeleteOr consider the potential of what was considered president in Supreme Court rulings being over turned. How can we say we are a nation governed by laws, when all one has to do is change the make up of the ruling body to get a change of the rules. What was legal today is illegal tomorrow and vice versa. That's not a system of laws.
We're in trouble greater than we think. Not because of the president claiming a unitary executive position, but because those in the various drivers seats of the vehicles of government reserve the right to not agree absolutely.
This whole system comes down to a gentleman's agreement. We agree to follow the system of laws that have materialized via a series of agreements. Until there are no gentlemen.
I don’t see anything that would keep the President from “accepting” it, but at the same time, insisting not to be bound by it.
ReplyDeleteWell, that is a real problem, isn't it? We have a President who deceitfully pretends to adhere to laws (as he and his Administration did for 4 years with FISA) which he breaks in secret.
That's why, as I said, having Congress just pass this law isn't enough. We don't have a country anymore where the President abides by the laws passed by Congress. Presumably, to resolve this matter, Congress would insist on an emphatic, unambiguous statement from the Administration that they will voluntarily agree to abide by this new law -- a statement I don't think they will give -- but you're absolutely right that even if they do make such a pledge, there is no reason, given the Administration's history, to be confident that they would adhere to it.
I have a legal confusion:
ReplyDeleteAre all laws, er, legally constitutional until the Supreme Court says otherwise? That is, if Congress passes a law criminalizing flag-burning, that law is still perfectly valid until the Supreme Court rules that it's not? I mean, simply because it's unconstitutional on its face doesn't mean it's not the law, does it?
One may break the law, following what one believes to be a higher law--and I believe one sometimes should--but that doesn't change the cold hard fact that one is, actually, -breaking the law-.
This is what I don't understand about Bart's comment. Even if the President is morally correct in every way, and even if he's right that FISA is perfectly unconstitutional, can anyone argue that -before the Supreme Court agrees with him-, he's not breaking the law?
Once the Supremes declare FISA unconstitutional, then it's trashed--that's fine. Pefect. But until then, isn't 'ignoring' the law ... criminal?
In fact, isn't breaking the law the very -definition- of criminal? And aren't there consequences to acting criminally?
Gussie
What's to stop the administration from accepting this legislation, in order to let the administration appear to be fair and receptive, and then just continue flaunting the law and hope to not get caught?
ReplyDeleteThey're breaking the law already, so I have a hard time imagining they won't do it again to suit their needs.
What's to stop the administration from accepting this legislation, in order to let the administration appear to be fair and receptive, and then just continue flaunting the law and hope to not get caught?
ReplyDeleteAh, I see someone posted this question before me. You people are too quick! My apologies.
These last few years have been a great example of the way it seems that party loyalties come way before branch loyalties. Although within the last month or so that seems to have been falling apart, as you've noted, Glenn.
ReplyDeleteWhat are the possibilities of the President actually being forced to obey the law or to answer for his crimes if the makeup of Congress changes in November? If Democrats get the majority in one or both of the Houses, would they theoretically be able to force the issue more effectively than the Republicans are willing to?
My main concern when you posted yesterday was that Specter's legislation would allow Bush a "get out of jail free card", to let him basically keep doing what he's doing and get out from under the political heat of the scandal. Now it looks like that might not be the case.
As an excuse to justify refusing this legislation, won't the Administration claim it's too complex to be workable? I don't know anything about these kinds of programs or agencies, but wouldn't it be a hell of a lot of work to file those affidavits and provide that data every 45 days? Both to the FISA Court and to the Congressional committee? It seems like that would be as much work as doing the actual eavesdropping.
Jeff
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteone has to wonder just exactly WHAT sort of "surveillance" (and on who) the Admin has done/is doing that would justify it deliberately flouting legal procedures? AND turning it into a make-or-break issue with Congress over Executive power?
ReplyDeleteWhile it would not surprise me in the slightest if they were abusing this eavesdropping power (and it would probably surprise me if they weren't), I've never been one who insists that they are abusing it. For one thing, I don't actually know; nobody does. For another, I think it's quite plausible that they insisted on bypassing FISA because Bush believes he should not have to get permission from a court to eavesdrop on whoever he wants - I can definitely see that principle being sufficient to induce them to violate the law.
to domestic communications (presumably including those by and to US citizens) as well as the "overseas" or "one-side-in-the-US" sort now covered by FISA. IIJM, or is this a cause for alarm on the civil-liberties front?
The Administration can already eavesdrop on domestic communications provided it has a FISA warrant, so I don't see that change as being earth-shattering.
For me, at least, what is so significant about this scandal is not the scope of eavesdropping powers we give to the Executive to engage in surveillance on suspected terrorists (that is a debatable topic), but rather, whether we have a system of government where the President has the right to violate the law (which, in my view, is not a reasonably debatable topic) or act without oversight from the other branches.
In paragraph (a) "...but purely domestic communications as well." that seems to be reaching back to cover what we have assumed is already an ongoing domestic to domestic surveillance.
ReplyDeleteI think many of us are asking a simple question. I am not an attorney and do not understand what seems to be a straightforward process. If a person robs the local Quikstop and is caught, he is arrested by police on suspicion, booked and then what? Court date set? He is tried and found guilty or not guilty and then sentenced or not? What happens when it is the president, and the suspected crime is grave? I'm completely serious. What happens when it is the president?
ReplyDeleteIf the Administration insists on refusing to acknowledge and obey such an act of Congress, then it seems that a bill of impeachment is almost certainly to be entered. What other remedy is available to Congress, except caving in again?
ReplyDeletei think dan becker has made a critical point re: our whole system of government apparently being dependent on the "gentleman's agreement" to follow the law. we need an effective enforcement mechanism. that is why glen's (and other's) efforts to organize and support bipartisan opposition is so important.
ReplyDeletebut, i do think that we are missing the other part of the lawlessness - which are the telcos and isps. without their illegal cooperation the bush administration would not be able to ignore FISA.
how can we bring pressure on them to first come clean with what they've been doing and second to follow FISA law even if NSA demand otherwise?
EFF has sued AT&T, but is that enough? i don't think so. what can WE do?
We agree to follow the system of laws that have materialized via a series of agreements. Until there are no gentlemen.
ReplyDeleteWell we're doomed then - "go f#ck yourself" is no gentleman and the pResident in the White House is a smirking chimpanzee!
And I have not even started on the "culture of corruption" crowd in the republican congress...
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteI am eager, even giddy, at the possibility of your analysis of the recent New Yorker article (Annals of the Pentagon: The Memo) and how the strategy used by the legal community in the administration is used to justify the President's actions. More importantly, how the theory of Presidential Powers, used in the case of detainee abuse, can (and will) be used to continue with the eavesdropping program despite "assurances" to the contrary.
Please take this on. Mora did from the inside before he retired. We don't know who else is fighting the good fight.
Glenn said "In sum, under our current system of Government, what used to be called a "law" is now more like a contractual offer or a suggestion. When the American people pass a law through our Congress, we have to hope that the President will agree to obey it."
ReplyDeleteThis is reminiscent of environmental laws under this administration. Let's not pass any pesky laws - let's just encourage our governmental and corporate masters to self-regulate. Power corrupts - when our system of laws refuses to accept this basic truth, we are all in big trouble.
Anonymous:
ReplyDelete"I have a legal confusion"
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail."
It seems that FISA must make a clear distinction between U.S. persons entitled to an expectation of privacy under the 4th amendment, and agents of foreign powers (terrorists) that one can only hope would not be entitled to an expectation of privacy, including "domestic to domestic" terrorist communications. If FISA or similar laws do not make this distinction, they may be unconstitutional.
Bush critics and many Congressmen / women have noted that Congress has a constitutional responsibility to oversee the executive. Simply doing nothing other than enacting new law passing that requirement over to the judicial branch is not congressional oversight, rather it then becomes judicial oversight. Where is the language authorizing Congress to do that found in the Constitution?
More here, and here.
Subjecting the Commander-in-Chief to judicial pre-approval for a broad eavesdropping program? John Yoo is rolling over in his grave.
ReplyDeleteThe amendment vests the FISA court with broad discretion to say what is legal and illegal, but doesn't it also make it harder for potential whistleblowers to judge whether X program is illegal? Or whether Y violation of X is an abuse of power?
I don't like this. The Bush Administration could accede to the legislation as a fig leaf (with a signing statement, like zack said), make nice, and meanwhile ruthlessly pursue the NSA whistleblowers. It worked for several years last time.
Would the Republicans let a chastised Bush get away with agreeing to abide by Specter's legislation? How does that affect the recent distancing operations the Republicans have been using for the 2006 elections? Does it make the Republicans look like they're reining in the President on national security?
This stinks.
I agree with your comments Glenn.
ReplyDeletebut the question is, is how do you get the president to obey the laws in this country?
He obviously believes he has Constitutional authority to break the law, which is ludicrous since the Constitution allows for Impeachment for "high crimes and misdameaners" and since you cannot logically protect and defend something you are breaking. It defies logic.
Maybe bush believes himself to be " a living constitution which supercedes the written one" or some nonsense like that.
I believe the only way to hold this pres accountable, when all else is said and done, is to investigate and proceed with Impeachment if found warranted, which it obviously is. But of course congress is not capable of this right now which seems to me to compound the problem with bush.
How difficult would it be for Congress to strip out the more meaningful provisions of Specter's draft, and pass a version that is acceptable to the Administration? Would it be terribly surprising to see a final version of this bill that gives the admininistration the option to report on warrantless wiretapping every 90 or 180 days?
ReplyDeleteAnd how are conservatives going to feel about this program when its President Biden or *gulp* President Clinton at the controls?
Glen,
ReplyDeleteIn your zealotry you forget to notice the obvious implications in your description of Spectre's bill.
1. Spectre's bill attempts to substitute judicial oversight for what should rather be congressional oversight.
2. Spectre's bill has tremendous separation of powers implications because it makes a judge and the judicial branch part of the executive branch. Then it goes further by making these judges superior to the President's executive determinations as to what and how a particular executive program should be conducted.
Spectre's bill doesn't call on judges to decide a legal case and controversy as REQUIRED by the constitution. Rather, Spectre's bill commands the judiciary to usurp the executive power and to sit as a party in the chain of executive command (with EXECUTIVE authority GREATER than that of the President) to determine the parameters regarding who, what, when, and how to conduct an exclusively EXECUTIVE function (i.e. defending the country).
Spectre's proposal is not only blatantly unconstitutional. It is quite dangerous to the concept of 3 co-equal branches of government ordained by the constitution. Spectre's bill would set the precedent of greatly empowering the Judiciary as superior to BOTH the congress and the President, and is a real danger to our future liberty. Much more danger than George Bush wanting to look at some terrorists library card.
Spectre's bill is also cowardly in that it seeks to put an unelected judge in the place of the elected congress in performing congressional oversight. Spectre's bill is cowardly because it attempts to allow congress to evade their constitutional job of oversight so that the public will not be able to either reward congress or punish congress in the next election for the positions they may take while conducting such oversight. The public can't punish an unelected judge, incompetent in national security program design, needs, effectiveness, who is haplessly placed as the unconstitutional super-executive over the President to substitute this unelected judge's executive policy thinking for that of the ELECTED President.
Specte's bill is a constitutional or more accurately unconstitutional nightmare of congressional cowardice promoting extra-constitutional Judicial policy making executive decisions for which the judges would neither be accountable to the public or remotely competent to make.
Says the "Dog"
The public can't punish an unelected judge
ReplyDeleteWhich is exactly why we have a system of checks and balances.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that we should support this bill? That seems to me to be the height of folly. While I agree that this bill may force the Administration to show its true colors, I would refuse to support any candidate who favors this compromise. We are in a true constitutional crisis. Either the President has to obey the law or he's a dictator. There is no other alternative.
William,
ReplyDeleteExactly. Where do we go from here? If possible, let's avoid Congress.
Given Bart's obvious position on this situation, I propose that we start referring to Bart by a descriptive nickname:
ReplyDelete"Banana Republic Bart"
since this will better reflect his political philosophy.
I agree with Zack, but I think it's even worse. Just in time for the elections I see a dog and pony show where Bush and the Republicans in congress get to announce a wonderful compromise. By signing the bill, Bush can make it clear all he ever wanted was the power to keep us safe. All those doubting Dems are just Bush-bashing opportunists. Congressional Republicans get to go home and pretend they are doing their jobs, and claim they're not Bush lackeys.
ReplyDeleteBush goes about ignoring the new law for the same reasons he does now. By the time it becomes clear he isn't complying, it's too late to hope for him to be brought to justice before his terms ends.
The media will let them get away with this. If Bush signs this new one, the media will give us the same crap they did over the Mccain torture stuff. They'll tell us this new compromise covers all the bases and lets us sleep at night knowing Bush never did want anything more than the power to keep us safe from the evil-doers. Which makes it even harder for them to cover stories of Bush's future non-compliance.
Rove knows too well how to work the media. Congress only cares about getting itself re-elected. The Dems don't seem to have the power to keep the story focused on Bush's real legal claims. So i don't see how any bluffs will be called.
That said, I have no doubt whatsoever that one day this whole thing will end up in the courts. I firmly believe Bush will be slapped down hard. But how much damage is done in the meantime is anybody's guess.
If Bush's spying was really about keeping us safe, he'd follow the law. It gives him all the power he needs. The only possible reason I see for him to need the power he's claimed for himself is if he's doing things that would shock us if they were discovered. What that might be is anybody's guess. Eavesdropping on political opponenets is the mildest of the shocking abuses I can think of.
i know responding to stupid comments isn't usually worth it, but...
ReplyDelete"The public can't punish an unelected judge, incompetent in national security program design, needs, effectiveness, who is haplessly placed as the unconstitutional super-executive over the President to substitute this unelected judge's executive policy thinking for that of the ELECTED President."
This is a clear example of begging the question: in this country, until relatively recently, it was assumed that the president had to get permission from a judge - this was called a warrant...remember? - in order to search a citizen, his effects, or his communications. The assertion that judicial oversight constitutes a sort of "unconstitutional super-executive" power assumes precisely what is in question: that the president has the authority to search citizens without a warrant.
in fact, everything dog says simply asserts what is in question.
Specter's proposed bill must be good, cuz over at NRO Mark Levin says Specter is a "menace."
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that we should support this bill? That seems to me to be the height of folly.
ReplyDeleteNo, of course not. I don't support this bill at all. That should go without saying.
What I am saying is that this bill, contrary to what many (including Marty Lederman) seem to be suggesting, is NOT what the White House wants. The bill is predicated on the notion that Congress can limit and the courts must supervise the Administration's conduct with regard to national security - the opposite of the view the Administration is trying to install. In fact, the findings of the bill contain a statement that our Constitution gives power to all three branches even with regard to national security - the very opposite of the Yoo Theory.
That is why every Bush follower I've heard from - including the commenters here and (as Hypatia pointed out) truly odious people like Mark Levin - hate the law.
Specter introduced the bill and some people (I bet even some Democrats) are going to get behind it. That's inevitable. My point is that this bill can be used to provoke the true confrontation that needs to happen - between the Congress and courts on one side, and the President on the other -and can highlight what this scandal is really about. It is NOT about eavesdropping, but whether the President is requried to obey the law.
In my view, this scandal (meaning the general scandal of the fact that we have a President who refuses to obey the law) will be resolved by one thing and one thing only -- the demands of the public. I believe the main priority is to get Americans to see what is happening here. To the extent that this Specter bill forces a confrontation on this issue, that will facilitate that goal.
That doesn't mean I favor the bill - I don't. But I see that it can be used to squeeze some important benefits. We want to exacerbate the wedges among Republicans and Bush followers on this issue and others. We want people to realize that what Bush really wants is NOT the power to eavesdrop on Osama bin Laden, but the power to break the law.
When the White House rejects this bill (and just look at the reaction of Bush followers to this bill to see what their reaction will be), the real motives - the real issues - will be exposed. The issue is that the President demands to make decisions with no interference, oversight and in even in violation of Congressional law. Anything that highlights this fact is a good thing - it is critical, in fact, for there to be accounability for their law-breaking.
...it was assumed that the president had to get permission from a judge - this was called a warrant...remember? - in order to search a citizen, his effects, or his communications.
ReplyDeleteWhen was the last time you asked your friendly TSA agent for his warrant when you were searched at the airport?
Don't you think Osama and his pals here in the U.S. deserve no more consideration than you receive when you travel by air from point A to point B within the United States? Or are you saying that Osama and his American pals deserve more constitutional protection than you get?
Or are you saying that Osama and his American pals deserve more constitutional protection than you get?
ReplyDeleteThere's a LAW passed by the American people and signed into law by THE PRESIDENT agreeing that there will be no eavesdropping on Americans without judicial approval. There is no law like that for airports.
For 30 years, nobody claimed that law was unconstitutional. It was the law of the land, the agreement between American citizens, Congress and the Executive governing how to eavesdrop.
I know you want to throw that all out because Your Leader doesn't want to abide by it, but even Your Leader doesn't have the right to break the law. That's what distinguishes America from, say, Iran.
Not that you care about America. For creeps like you, the Leader is more important than all. Bush Uber Alle.
Seriously, why don't you go live in North Korea? They have the system there that you want.
Glenn said: For that reason, this bill is far from some magic bullet that will quietly resolve this scandal to the satisfaction of the Administration, because I do not believe the Administration can or will accept this legislation.
ReplyDeleteI love it--a "magic bullet" reference in a post about Specter.
Wonderful!
This is a clear example of begging the question: in this country, until relatively recently, it was assumed that the president had to get permission from a judge - this was called a warrant...remember? - in order to search a citizen, his effects, or his communications. The assertion that judicial oversight constitutes a sort of "unconstitutional super-executive" power assumes precisely what is in question: that the president has the authority to search citizens without a warrant.
ReplyDeletein fact, everything dog says simply asserts what is in question.
I know; and the Bush stalwarts here keep asserting that essential error in various formulations. At this point I am weary of rebutting it constantly.
They are all overlooking (purposefully) Youngstown, and what that holding necessarily means for Bush in this matter. The likelihood of our courts declaring that Congress has no authority to legislate in the area of domestic eavesdropping is slim to none. Even if the President also has "inherent authority" in the same area.
When Congress and the President both enjoy authority in an area, and Congress legislates in that domain, the President is virtually always bound by the law of Congress. That is what Justice Jackson's Youngstown opinion means.
It just is that simple. And is also why Powerline's John Hinderaker hates and ridicules Justice Jackson's opinion in Youngstown. I would ask all the Bush defenders to tell me why a Bush apologist and lawyer like Hinderaker has at least three times dismissed Justice Jackson's opinion as sloppy or silly thinking, if he did not realize what that opinion (recently applied by the SCOTUS in Hamdi) means for Bush?
There is no law like that for airports.
ReplyDeleteYou mean the fourth amendment isn't a law?? Perhaps the day they discussed it in ninth grade civics class you played hooky.
Ellen writes: There's a LAW passed by the American people and signed into law by THE PRESIDENT agreeing that there will be no eavesdropping on Americans without judicial approval. There is no law like that for airports.
ReplyDeleteExactly.
This is not an argument about constitutional protections held by -- terrorist or non-terrorist -- U.S. persons. Maybe the 4th Am doesn't apply when the President acts in the name of national security; this is an unsettled area of law.
But what is not unsettled is that when Congress has legislated, the Presidnet, even if he holds his own (inherent) authority, must virtually always abide by the statute. Justice Thomas in his Hamdi dissent indicated that he might have been with the majority if Congress had legislated protections for persons such as Mr. Hamdi. Thomas clearly stated that Congress also has authority in the area of national security.
This is not a debate about Bush violating the 4th Am -- tho he may be, reasonable people differ on the question. But what is crystal clear is that Bush is blatantly breaking the law -- FISA -- passed by our deliberative body called Congress.
We agree to follow the system of laws that have materialized via a series of agreements. Until there are no gentlemen.
ReplyDeleteIt bears noting that this is exactly the set of circumstances that led to the fall of the Roman Republic. The Senate's power rested entirely on tradition, not on the express letter of the law. The Gracchi brothers were the first to exploit this reality and, while they did so out of a genuine belief in the need for reform, it ultimately paved the way for less idealisitic men to aggressively pursue their own interests rather than the interests of the state. The ultimate result was the destruction of the republican system of government in a city which had upheld their system much longer than this country had, and that similarly operated as the lone global superpower of its day.
After reading Levin’s commentary it is difficult to see how he would support any checks and balances on Presidential power at all – and, I guess, that’s the point.
ReplyDeleteHe describes Specter’s proposal as “judicial supremacy” and insists that Bush must “protect the executive branch from encroachment by Congress and the judiciary, particularly his commander-in-chief powers.”
Levin is arguing for absolute Presidential powers with no oversight from the judiciary at all, he sneers at them: “The idea that judges and their law clerks have the skills, experience, or responsibility to make these decisions is absurd.”
He then asks rhetorically “what limits are placed on a president who doesn’t seek judicial review?”
His answer is completely disingenuous: “Three come to mind: 1. Congress's ability to deny the program funding. 2. Congress's impeachment power. 3. Constitutional limits on a president's tenure.”
So either Congress must give the President absolute power for his NSA program or cut off funding – that is their only option.
Of course, he knows very well that Congress wants potential terrorists to be monitored and they would never cut off funding, so that isn’t an option. ( And neither is impeachment or changing the constitution on presidential tenure. His options are not options at all, and he knows it. )
If we ever needed an example of intellectual dishonesty of those supporting Bush here is a perfect example. These people have no shame.
Critics of the president's NSA program wonder what limits are placed on a president who doesn't seek judicial review. Three come to mind: 1. Congress's ability to deny the program funding. 2. Congress's impeachment power. 3. Constitutional limits on a president's tenure."
ReplyDelete1. I can't believe Levin is arguing, that Congress would not fund a program that spies on the enemy, as a limit on the President. He knows that everyone in Congress wants to spy on the enemy, but they want judicial oversight, not elimate the program outright. This is so intillectually dishonest.
2. Congress could impeach the President, if he broke the law, but we all know, that a Republican Congress, will not impeach the leader of their own party, and he knows this too. Second, you can't impeach the President if there isn't an investigation, into the alleged criminal activity first. If the opposition party were in control that is a legitimate check on the President, but in the situation we find ourselves in now, this is untenable.
3. This is a weak argument because of the two points I have made above. If Republicans won't investigate their leader, which we have seen that they are not willing to, then the President will be able to break the law until his term runs out, without true oversight.
The critical factor here is exactly what you mention here (and also mentioned in your last post: we face a "profound crisis and scandal plaguing our country that few seem to want to acknowledge."
ReplyDeleteRecognizing that we face a constitutional crisis whose outcome will determine whether rule of law in the US was just a nice idea or whether it has a future is terrifying. Accepting the premise makes those who accept it responsible. Are we willing to pick up the ball? What will it cost us?
No wonder most folks would rather pretend that all is well.
I guess you played hooky that day as well, Gedaliya; otherwise you would have noticed the word "unreasonable" before "searches and seizures." It's entirely reasonable, given the damage that could be done by a single person with a dangerous weapon on an airplane (and it was reasonable even before 9/11, obviously), to expect to be randomly searched before getting on an airplane.
ReplyDeleteIt's quite a different story, however, to say that the government should be able to listen in on any electronic communications they want to (for purposes ranging from tracking terrorists to possibly identifying and eavesdropping on political dissidents.)
Unless, of course, your sheets are so wet from abject fear that you are willing to relinquish all that makes us better than the terrorists, on the off chance that would help Georgie defeat them.
Zack writes: After reading Levin’s commentary it is difficult to see how he would support any checks and balances on Presidential power at all – and, I guess, that’s the point.
ReplyDeleteIt would be difficult to overstate how radical Mr. Levin's views are. He is fully aware of the danger for Bush if the question of the legality of the warrantless eavesdropping were to come before any federal court. He certainly is not trusting those nine words of dicta from the FISA review court in In Re Sealed Case.
Rather, Levin knows how the FIS or any other court would rule, and for that reason -- and I think I linked to it contemporaneous with his remarks -- he wrote that the FIS court has no authority to consider the issue or to bind Bush, and that if it ruled against him, Bush should simply ignore the court.
In other words, Levin repudiates judicial review and advocates what is essentially anarchy.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteReddHedd from FDL just plugged your blog on Air America.
Scoop Poopy Dog:
ReplyDeleteStop leaving these piles.
Says your Homerotic.
Quoting Levin: "Critics of the president's NSA program wonder what limits are placed on a president who doesn't seek judicial review. Three come to mind: 1. Congress's ability to deny the program funding..."
ReplyDeleteAbout that first supposed limit on the president's wartime powers: there's something I don't get. Even *if* Congress were to defund that NSA eavesdropping program, how does Congress go about defunding a presidential power... namely, the president's (self-claimed) inherent right to unilaterally exercise its powers on American citizens where national security is involved?
In other words, if Congress did specifically defund this single NSA program, what would stop the administration from choosing to then exercise its "right" to eavesdrop on Americans (sans warrant) out of the Justice Department instead? Or the Department of Homeland Security? Or the Defense Department? Or, hell, even Treasury?
How many entire executive departments would Congress have to defund in order to limit a president who doesn't submit to judicial review?
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
Glenn, you are brilliant.
ReplyDeleteIf if there are over 100 million people who oppose the establishment of an Imperial Presidency which holds itself above the law, their collective outrage comes to naught unless people step forward who are astute enough to analyze the issues, articulate enough to explain that analysis to the general public, and patriotic enough to be willing to spend the time doing both of the above.
It is so fortunate you have stepped forth at this precise moment when our nation is in such a historic crisis.
You have convinced me that the Administration will not accept this proposal, so I am not going to spend any more time analyzing it.
But what happens if Specter "modifies" this proposal to make it acceptable to the President?
And what do we do when the Administration rejects it?
Meanwhile, the large issue of the Administration wanting to operate free of the restraints of the judiciary or the Congress that the Constitution mandates can best be demonstrated to the public at large, in my opinion, by highlighting one more "restraint" that this Administration ignores: the will of the American people.
That can only be brought home to the public in the immediate future by linking this to the Port deal, which the American people reject but which the Administration wants to push through.
Once the public's attention has been captured by the enormous revelation that this corrupt, arrogant administration cares only about pursuing its own twisted, secret and unamerican agenda, I think the public will be receptive to other instances, including but not limited to the illegal surveillance issue, that demonstrate this same point.
Please do not ignore the powerful way in which the Port issue is even more beneficial in terms of waking up the public than the administration's upcoming rejection of the Specter proposal.
Gedaliya:
ReplyDeleteAirline travel is a privilege, not a right. It's predicated on the fact that you agree to be searched. You don't have to allow the search, but you understand that your luggage might be searched as a consequence of your availing yourself of the privilege, and you understand that not submitting to searches is grounds for airport security to refuse to let you board the plane.
Same as warehouse clubs. You sign an agreement to waive your right against searches of your private possessions (that stuff in your cart you just bought) in exchange for low, low prices on institutional mayonnaise. If you don't submit to the receipt checker at Costco, you're breaking the contract you signed, and they kick you out of the club. In public stores, on the other hand, you pay for it, it's yours, and stores need probable cause to detain you or even check your receipt.
Communications privacy is a right, not a privilege. The right not to have some creep overhearing your intimate conversations in the absence of probable cause is in the bedrock of our Constitution.
I am curious, come to think of it, if Specter's bill is even Constitutional, creating as it does a quasi-legal mechanism for searches without probable cause (as long as the program does catch some communications by foreign agents).
IANAL
Glenn,
ReplyDeletethe NSA scandal may become moot if what is in this article is ever enacted.
http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=eed74d9d44
Just as the pres ignores one law or more than one, what is to prevent him from "suspending the Constitution and declaring martial law"?
Could you comment on this?
How many entire executive departments would Congress have to defund in order to limit a president who doesn't submit to judicial review?
ReplyDeletePatrick Meighan makes a good point. Indeed, that is in effect exactly what Congress tried to do with Poindexters’s TIA program, but it seems to have been renamed, re-funded, and restarted again.
It all comes back to the same question: how can you stop an administration intent upon doing what it wants regardless of the law.
Did passing a law making bank robbery illegal keep Willie Sutton from robbing banks? Well, no. That’s where the money was.
When you have criminals in power, writing laws doesn’t change their behavior. The first step (and the most difficult): getting the public to accept that we have criminals in power.
guess you played hooky that day as well, Gedaliya; otherwise you would have noticed the word "unreasonable" before "searches and seizures." It's entirely reasonable...
ReplyDeleteWhether or not it is "reasonable" has nothing to do with the issue. My point was that the searches are warrantless. The entire point of the fourth amendment is that a warrant will not be issued unless a search is deemed reasonable, and except in very narrowly defined cases, no searches are allowed without the issuance of a warrant.
The airport example is instructive in this debate. Those who oppose the president's NSA program, ostensibly because a few Americans may get monitored without benefit of a warrant, (generally) have no objection of being searched (even to the point of having someone check a woman's breasts) at airports, even though there is no warrant issued for the search.
Why don't they object? Because they believe the sacrifice of one of their civil liberties is outweighed by the real threat to their very lives if the warrantless search is not carried out. This is why we don't see even hardcore members of the hate-Bush left out picketing airports or writing hate-screeds in blogs about the issue, for after all, they need to fly from point A to point B without fear of a muslim blowing himself up in their airplane.
This is the precisely why I and others have no objection to the NSA program, i.e., the costs of the program (a slight diminution of my civil liberties) are ourweighed by the benefits derived thereof: the possibly discovery of a plot to commit mass murder against my fellow citizens.
"This is not an argument about constitutional protections held by -- terrorist or non-terrorist -- U.S. persons. Maybe the 4th Am doesn't apply when the President acts in the name of national security; this is an unsettled area of law."
ReplyDeleteMany comments here presume that terrorists and "United States persons" are given equal 4th amendment consideration under FISA, and that the administration is therefore just mindlessly "spying" on the entire population hoping to stumble upon a terror cell.
Isn't it possible that the administration is not "illegally spying" on U.S. persons without a warrant in violation of FISA, while at the same time they may be legally spying on terrorists for foreign intelligence purposes without a FISA warrant because terrorists are an "association which is a foreign power" rather than U.S. persons?
“United States person” means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.
FISA Definitions.
This is the precisely why I and others have no objection to the NSA program, i.e., the costs of the program (a slight diminution of my civil liberties) are ourweighed by the benefits derived thereof: the possibly discovery of a plot to commit mass murder against my fellow citizens.
ReplyDeleteWhy can't this same eavesdropping just be done with judicial oversight, to prevent abuse?
You are setting up a false dichotomy. The issue isn't eavesdropping v. no eavesdropping.
The issue is LEGAL eavesdropping with judicial oversight versus ILLEGAL eavesdropping with no oversight.
Why do you keep lying and pretending that the debate is about whether we will have eavesdropping?
And, of course, the administration even said "no thank you" to an offer to liberalize FISA even more, because (then) it wasn't needed and would be unconstitutional, and (now) because the debate in Congress would have disclosed the NSA program.
ReplyDeleteWankers.
Glenn, do you think Specter's bill would help or hurt efforts to uncover Able Danger and similar other, not-yet-in-the-sunlight programs similar to this one?
I still assert that the Administration has a pervasive, full-spectrum eavesdropping program.
ReplyDeleteI believe that if they had any hope at all of getting warrants from FISA, they would have gotten the warrants rather than ever put themselves into this position in the first place. It's not like it is especially hard to get the warrants, considering the 72 hour after-the-fact window, and especially considering the huge number of warrants that already have been approved and the tiny number that were rejected.
However, if their eavesdropping program is as expansive as I'm asserting, there is no way, absolutely no way, FISA would have or even could have granted a warrant.
Hence, it was executed without warrants.
Just because the Administration asserts, even to Congress, that the program is "just international phone calls" and "much smaller than originally feared" doesn't lend any credibility, sadly, to that testament. Remember, this is the Administration that had their Chief stand in front of the American people to remind them, specifically, that all wiretapping is done with warrants. In front of video cameras.
They are just revealing the tip of the ice berg, and trying to pretend like it stops there, because they think they can get away with it.
Nixon had it all planned out the collaborate with the CIA on the "national security" argument in order to keep the FBI out of the investigations on *his* illegal activity.
The program is much more expansive and diverse than they are letting on. Allow me to remind you that Total Information Awareness, which Congress cut funding for citing privacy concerns, was NOT cancelled but merely moved into a classified program at the NSA.
You don't think there is a connection?
Seriously, think about this critically for a second: Am I the only one that sees the comical paradox in the Administration's main argument? They claim that they only spy on Americans if there is a terrorist on the other end of the line. However, if they have the ability to know who is going to pick up the phone and talk to a terrorist, then they certainly must know enough to get the warrant from FISA up to 72 hours later, and why not even BEFORE the tapping. Think about it.
Unless, of course, the program executes autonomously and automatically.
fly: "Isn't it possible that the administration is not "illegally spying" on U.S. persons without a warrant in violation of FISA, while at the same time they may be legally spying on terrorists for foreign intelligence purposes without a FISA warrant because terrorists are an "association which is a foreign power" rather than U.S. persons?"
ReplyDeleteThat's all well and good, fly, but who gets to decide whether a U.S. Person is simply a U.S. Person or, instead, an agent of a foreign power, and therefore a legal target for unrestrained spying without a warrant. This administration declares that it, and it alone, is entitled to make such a unilateral declaration, and then spy on (or imprison, as in the case of Jose Padilla) any such U.S. Person accordingly.
What limit exists to keep the administration from abusing that self-claimed power, and declaring innocent U.S. Persons to be agents of a foreign power (and then exerting its eavesdropping authority accordingly)? Previously: the FISA court, from whom a warrant was required before eavesdropping (or retroactively, under certain circumstances). Now: no one. Per the administration's own arguments, absolutely no other branch of government can stop the administration from unilaterally declaring any U.S. Person to be an agent of a foreign power, and thus a legal target for eavesdropping, indefinite imprisonment without charge, etc., etc.
Why don't they object? Because they believe the sacrifice of one of their civil liberties is outweighed by the real threat to their very lives if the warrantless search is not carried out.
ReplyDeleteThere's only one problem there, Gedaliya, and that is the fact (as the "unreasonable" part states) that airport searches are NOT a violation of civil liberties. As an astute commenter already pointed out, you don't have a civil right to fly an airplane. If you refuse to be searched, your baggage can be alternatively searched or you can be denied entry onto the plane. But they will not forcibly subject you to the search unless you insist on attempting to enter the plane regardless.
The airport analogy is not central to this debate; it is a red herring designed to obfuscate not only the central point (which is not the wiretapping to begin with, but rather the administration's insane attempt to justify breaking the law that governs it) as well as the very nature of the civil liberties that genuinely might be being infringed by such wiretapping. That, of course, is a whole different debate.
If you can separate yourself from your paralyzing fear of "turrism" and examine the real issues at stake here, maybe you can join the same debate as everyone else.
I realized I neglected to finish a thought above.
ReplyDeleteIf you decide that you do not want to be subjected to a search before boarding an airplane, you can, in a sense, "abandon" your attempt to board it and you will not be subject to the search. There is no such possibility for abandonment when it comes to wiretapping, because by its very nature, you aren't aware of the eavesdropping until perhaps much later (if they decide to use it against you in whatever fashion.)
That's another reason why, if the nature of the wiretapping were even the issue at hand, the airport analogy is deeply flawed.
In my view, this scandal (meaning the general scandal of the fact that we have a President who refuses to obey the law) will be resolved by one thing and one thing only -- the demands of the public.
ReplyDeleteThere's the nub of it. There's nothing else to write. The only question is how to get the public mad enough to raise up their voices loud enough to be heard.
Ans: PORT DEAL.
With reference to that Port deal, another exquisite example of the thesis that we will faily unless we attack the whole issue of Executive lawlessness, enabled by Congress, is this:
There are news reports that state that Hillary Clinton (who would be even scarier as President than Bush, imo) is going to introduce legislation that would block foreign governments from operating our ports (she is responding to public opinion, which is how she makes all her "political" decisions in her run-up to the Presidency, but she and Schumer are going to include in that legislation a provision that the President can override that legislation if he chooses to do so.
This notion of an Imperial Presidency was born in the Clinton administration, where it was below radar generally, has come to bloom in the Bush administration, and will turn into the mushroom cloud that finally throws out the Constitution in the next administration, especially under Hillary. She seems to have already accepted this notion that the President is above the law.
That's why we have to impeach these ideas which are destroying our government, not only the people who are presently in the driver's seat.
It may be that the only way to impeach these ideas, convict them and put them to death, is to impeach this President.
Otherwise, either Cheney resigns, Bush appoints some fascist co-hort as Vice President, and that fascist becomes the next Fuhrer, or someone and power mad unprincipled like Hillary who secretly buys into this whole corrupt system of government, will simply take over the reins of corruption and run roughshod over what will be our few remaining civil liberties in America.
The Port Deal. We must take a stand on this deal and bombard with emails, phone calls and letters, all politicians who are enabling the President to shove this down the throats of the American People.
A "protest" scheduled for April 1st (April Fool's Day---perfect!)is shaping up in the blogosphere to demonstrate against this Administration. We should all participate. The public has to know how strong in numbers the opposition forces really are, and the press will have to sit up and take notice, and hopefully that will be the beginning of the end.
That will be the "debut" of the "demands of the public" (of which Glenn speaks) whose participation is needed to save this country from fascism.
I think everyone could spend their time no more effectively than going to every blog they visit and mentioning this April 1st protest.
Organizing details will emerge in the next few weeks.
The issue is LEGAL eavesdropping with judicial oversight versus ILLEGAL eavesdropping with no oversight.
ReplyDeleteThe law does not require the president to obtain a warrant to conduct the NSA surveillance program. Therefore, by definition, it cannot be illegal.
This is a classic political battle between the executive and legislative branches of our government. It has plenty of precedent in years gone by, and will never be fully resolved. At numerous times in our history the executive and legislative branches have clashed over the boundry of their relative constitutional powers. At times the president has prevailed...at other times the Congress.
That is why describing this conflct as a "scandal" and charaterizing the president as a "lawbreaker" is so laughably fatuous, for doing so ignores a rich historical record, and betrays a sad ignorance of the built-in tensions between the branches of government that the founding fathers set in place to mitigate the execesses that both branches have a natural tendancy to display.
The present conflict will be resolved politically, despite the deep and abiding desire of the hate-Bush left to use this controversy to destroy the Bush presidency. That simply is not going to happen, folks, not because of this issue.
gedaliya expresses meek obedience to his/her leaders in the following fashion: "I and others have no objection to the NSA program... the costs of the program (a slight diminution of my civil liberties) are ourweighed by the benefits derived thereof..."
ReplyDeleteThat's great for you. *I*, however, have offered no such consent to the abrogation of my civil liberties, and had naiively assumed them to be still in effect during the 4-year span this program has been operational. In fact, my elected representatives officially declared as much, back in 1978, when they passed a law called FISA.
Maybe there's some list somewhere you can sign to voluntarily surrender those civil liberties you seem so willing to part with, Gedaliya. But I'll thank you not to sign my name down next to yours. My civil liberties are not yours to give away.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
As an astute commenter already pointed out, you don't have a civil right to fly an airplane.
ReplyDeleteAnother astute commentator (me) also pointed out that you don't have a civil right to have a telephone conversation with an al Qaada opeative overseas.
The airport analogy is not central to this debate; it is a red herring designed to obfuscate not only the central point (which is not the wiretapping to begin with, but rather the administration's insane attempt to justify breaking the law that governs it)...
There is no law that trumps the president's authority to promulgate the NSA program. Therefore he is not breaking any law.
The administration's attempt is in no way "insane." For you to characterize it as such betrays you as an unserious person. I'm sorry, but you are so infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome that any attempt by me to carry on civl discourse with you is sure to end in disappointment.
Recent letter from Santorum, in reply to my request that he take a stand against the illegal spying, argues that the President is permitted to evade FISA requirements when authorized by statute. Santorum said that is what he intended to authorize Bush to do with his vote for the post 9/11 use-of-force resolution. He evades the question of whether that was the intent of Congress, or just his intent.
ReplyDeleteSeems to be good evidence that Bush plans to continue to argue that no legislative fix is needed, and that a law such as Specter's would just interfere unnecessarily with the use of force resolution.
So I'm not sure that Specter's legislation will succeed in pinning down Bush to any theory of the reach of Executive power. More likely, Bush will try to swat it aside as irrelevant.
My worry about it remains that it will end up providing cover for those in Congress who are wimps, or those who actively want to provide cover for Bush and will pretend that it's Congress' duty to move toward him (rather than Bush's duty to uphold the law).
The real duty of Congress to take a stand is so clear, that shilly-shallying with bills that are, or should be, DOA will likely just muddy the water.
Gedaliya –
ReplyDeleteYou’re right:
“Whether or not it is ‘reasonable’ has nothing to do with the issue.“
The point is that the searches are warrantless.
And the airport example is instructive in this debate.
Why don't people object to warrantless searches at airports?
NOT “because they believe the sacrifice of one of their civil liberties is outweighed by the real threat to their very lives if the warrantless search is not carried out.”
They don’t protest because they need to fly from point A to point B.
The issue is one of expediency: it’s the same reason we thoughtlessly present ID when we’re asked these days. Presenting ID does next to nothing to prevent terrorism: do you think terrorists can’t just get a fake? After all, couldn’t you get fake ID if you wanted to? And they’ve done it before. Similarly, airport searches do next to nothing to prevent airline terrorism: all of the terrorists were searched before they got on those planes…right? If you think either of those steps does anything to make you safer, you’re very naive.
But if you don’t give ID, or submit to a search, you can’t fly.
So, in the interest of expediency, we show ID, we deal with being prodded. And then we (by which I mean “I,” since you apparently are easily taken in…) get on the plane and hope nobody decides to hijack ‘til after we get off.
And if you really have no objection to the NSA program based on some proposed trade-off between security and liberty (e.g. you’re arguing that it’s an expedient way to catch terrorists), you really don’t understand what’s at issue.
The costs of the program aren’t “a slight diminution of [your] civil liberties.” And the benefits of that program aren’t “the possibly [I assume you mean ‘possible’] discovery of a plot to commit mass murder against my fellow citizens.” The costs of the program are (more or less) the destruction of our system of government. THAT’S WHAT IT MEANS WHEN THE PRESIDEN ASSERTS THAT HE CAN BREAK ANY LAW HE DOESN’T AGREE WITH.
And the benefits of the program are that you get to fool yourself into thinking yourself somewhat “safe,” even as you surrender all those freedoms you once thought were important.
...that's great for you. *I*, however, have offered no such consent to the abrogation of my civil liberties...
ReplyDeleteYou have at airports. Why not while you (not you personally, of course) talk to al Qaeda operatives overseas?
"I'm sorry, but you are so infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome that any attempt by me to carry on civl discourse with you is sure to end in disappointment."
ReplyDeleteGrandpa: "Kids, gather 'round. Lookit this. We call this an ad hominem argument."
Kids: "Ooh!" / "Wow!" / "Neat!"
Patrick Meighan writes:That's great for you. *I*, however, have offered no such consent to the abrogation of my civil liberties, and had naiively assumed them to be still in effect during the 4-year span this program has been operational. In fact, my elected representatives officially declared as much, back in 1978, when they passed a law called FISA.
ReplyDeleteIf Congress wishes to extend citizens more protection than the 4th Am perhaps would require, it may do so. Even if the President has "inherent authority" to conduct warrantless searches in a national security context,Congress also has authority in the area of national security, and it has legislated that domestic surveillance of telecommunications in the national security context shall be done with judicial oversight.
Bush is violating the law; a statute; whether or not he is also violating the 4th Am.
mds tells the Fly: Oh, the fly. I hate to tell you this, but none of this is new. All of this was dealt with when the flouting of FISA was first acknowledged by the administration. Pretending that you're recycling in good faith, I will skip referring you to Mr. Greenwald's sidebar link to old arguments. If you examine the link you yourself helpfully provided, you will find that subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) explicitly leaves out subsection (a)(4) "a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;". So simply being "linked" to terrorists is insufficient to waive the warrant provision.
Thank you. God this is getting tiresome, the same old canards endlessly recycled.
Fly -- read the Compendium of NSA Arguments in Glenn's sidebar. Internalize same.
Glen said: For me, at least, what is so significant about this scandal is not the scope of eavesdropping powers we give to the Executive to engage in surveillance on suspected terrorists (that is a debatable topic)
ReplyDeleteActually, the scope of eavesdropping is significant and it is why Specter's bill is flawed and should be opposed. I appreciate your point that Bush is after the mother of all presidential power grabs, but it is precisely the detailed provisions of the law that define permissible and not permissible eavesdropping. Defining the boundary of the law (i.e. its scope) sets the perameters of privacy rights of citizens vs. noncitizens and within the borders of the U.S. vs. outside of the country.
We accept that we give up a reasonable expectation of privacy when we cross a border or step onto an airplane because the Supreme Court has defined the scope of a right to privacy at those junctions. Away from those places, we operate under the belief that we do have a right to privacy. I carry items in my purse in a daily basis, for example, that I would not carry on board a plane or while attempting to drive to Canada precisely because I know that I have a right to privacy at all other (or most other) times. To change the scope of this right -- to restrict the right to privacy at all times , as the Specter amendment does, according to the analyis here, is to make this expectation of privacy meaningless.
Simply put, it does matter what the scope of the law entails. It can mean the difference between most people having a right to not have their calls intercepted or e-mails read most of the time to few people having this right at few times. Big difference in the real world.
While you are correct to identify Bush's agenda, it is critical we not lose sight that the devil, as always, is in the details.
Patrick Meighan---hear hear!
ReplyDeletePatrick, hope you will get involved with the April 1st day of protest. Another way to look at it is the first day of the Constitutional Convention of the patriotic blogosphere
Please, will someone answer a "stupid" question? What is a "foreign power" (or agent thereof)? In my ordinary use of language that indicates a state (nation).
ReplyDeleteAl Qaeda was/were conceivably an agent of the rulers of Afghanistan once. Now they are one small group in hiding + a collection of wannabes using the name.
Is/are they a "foreign power"?
The costs of the program aren’t “a slight diminution of [your] civil liberties.” And the benefits of that program aren’t “the possibly [I assume you mean ‘possible’] discovery of a plot to commit mass murder against my fellow citizens.” The costs of the program are (more or less) the destruction of our system of government. THAT’S WHAT IT MEANS WHEN THE PRESIDEN ASSERTS THAT HE CAN BREAK ANY LAW HE DOESN’T AGREE WITH.
ReplyDeleteWell, on this we disagree (and there is no need to shout...I can hear quite well).
I (and I suspect the vast majority of Americans who are paying attention to this) don't believe this program represents some rogue power grab by a wannabe dictator bent on absolute power. Most reasonable people understand it for what it is...a reasonable compromise of our civil rights in order to reduce the risk of attack from our mortal enemies. That's all there is to it, despite Glenn Greenwald's silly attempt to brand it a "scandal," and the hysterical hand-wringing by people who hate George Bush so much that anything he attempts to do is assumed to be derived from evil intent.
Me: "..that's great for you. *I*, however, have offered no such consent to the abrogation of my civil liberties...
ReplyDeleteGedaliya: "You have at airports. Why not while you (not you personally, of course) talk to al Qaeda operatives overseas?"
If I am talking to an al Qaeda operative overseas, the administration can get a warrant from the FISA court and listen in. That's the law of the land, passed as a safeguard of those very civil liberties you've surrendered, but I haven't. And the administration has had 4 years to say that it disagrees with this law of the land, and that it opposes my right to those civil liberties which I have not surrendured (but you have). But the administration has done no such thing, for 4 solid years, while secretly abrogating those civil liberties which I have not surrendured (but which you have).
If the administration wishes for me to now officially surrendur those very civil liberties I have not (as yet) surrendured (but which you have), it can start by asking me (or my elected representatives), as opposed to unilaterally declaring those civil liberties to be null and void. 'Cause such a unilateral declaration of the voiding of certain civil liberties is liable to anger some Americans. Not everyone is as obedient as you.
owenz
ReplyDeleteIt's not a question of IF the Administration's policies will be repudiated by Congress -- it's a question of WHEN.
The trouble is that the only meaningful sanction available is impeachment. The president clearly doesn't care whether members of Congress say mean things about him. And he also has made very clear that he will ignore the law when he feels like it.
The only remedy is impeachment. The Republicans have already shown that they are better at playing chicken than the Democrats on the nuclear option. Without that threat, Alito might not have gotten cloture.
So your only shot at repudiation is a 1994 style tidal wave that shifts the House, and gets the Senate close to 50-50. And then a sudden discovery by republican senators that the institution is more important than whatever threats Rove can make.
Not something I'd bet on. The odds got considerably better, though, with this Dubai port business. It's gonna be hard to argue with a straight face that the president has to obey laws governing acquisition of American assets by foreign governments, but doesn't need to obey laws related to the Constitutional rights of Americans. Not that this combination is not something Pat Roberts might well be willing to take a swing at....
Another astute commentator (me) also pointed out that you don't have a civil right to have a telephone conversation with an al Qaada opeative overseas.
ReplyDeleteI have to coach shortly, so I don't have time for all of it yet, but I will get back to it in due time (even though it is surely a waste of effort.)
The obvious difference is that in attempting to board an airplane, in which you are KNOWINGLY subjecting yourself to a reasonable search, and the wiretapping situation is that the government doesn't KNOW if you are talking to an Al-Qaeda operative unless it listens to countless conversations that probably aren't with an al-Qaeda operative.
You don't have the right to communicate with al-Qaeda operatives. However, you DO have the right to use a telephone, in general, to make calls overseas without having them all subject to government eavesdropping. The problem with the airport analogy, once again, is that there is no violation of civil liberties when you KNOW you will be searched and are voluntarily subjecting yourself to it. It is a violation of civil liberties if the government can listen to any call it pleases because there might be a remote possibility that the conversation is in furtherance of terrorism. I believe you're perfectly capable of grasping that distinction, but you couldn't care less because you're for anything that makes you feel safer from terrorism, no matter how invasive it may be.
More later...
"I'm sorry, but you are so infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome that any attempt by me to carry on civl discourse with you is sure to end in disappointment."
ReplyDeleteI can't seem to find Bush Derangement Syndrome in any of the Medical Journals or books on the subject. By the way, how does one get "infected" by it, because I would like to avoid that if possible.
I wonder if gedaliya can make a post, without dispariging comments like Bush Hater, or some other nonsense like that.
"the hysterical hand-wringing by people who hate George Bush so much that anything he attempts to do is assumed to be derived from evil intent."
ReplyDeleteGrandpa: "And THIS, kids, we call a 'strawman.'"
Kids: "Aaah!" / "Awesome!" / "Can I touch it?"
Grandpa: "No no. Don't touch it. Just look."
That's all there is to it, despite Glenn Greenwald's silly attempt to brand it a "scandal," and the hysterical hand-wringing by people who hate George Bush so much that anything he attempts to do is assumed to be derived from evil intent.
ReplyDeleteThis tedious and irrelevant ad hominem argument misses the point.
The point is simple. Congress passed a law. The president has not obeyed that law. Glenn's argument, all along, is that the point you're making--people support surveillance--is entirely irrelevant.
There's no question he broke the law. There's no question he knew he was breaking the law. There's also no question that he knew it was wrong; he lied about the use of warrants.
These are indefensible actions that have absolutely no partisan content to them. The president swore an oath to defend the consitution and enforce the laws of the land. He's violating that oath, every day, with both eyes open and using both hands.
Talking about the popularity of surveillance, or airport security, or Bush-hating is all a vain attempt to change the subject.
And that's my last rise up for this particular troll's bait.
No, the arrogance of the Bush administration is NOTHING compared to the arrogance of Schumer and Hillary Clinton.
ReplyDeleteNews is breaking this minute that the Coast guard had raised serious objections to "intelligence gaps" in the Port Deal, and were therefore not able to participate in evaluating the deal.
The fact that this phony Schumer/Clinton stance, where they are objecting ferociously to the lack of the 45 day review, instead of to the deal itself (they have perfected the art of coming out against a pig, proposing legislation to put lipstick on the pig, and then going along with the piggish program) is just so typical.
Even if they put lipstick on this pig, and all the corrupt policians on both sides then support the pig, it doesn't change the staggering fact that the administration illegally approved, without abiding by the 45 day manadated review, a program that the Coast Guard thought was dangerous.
It's AMAZING!!!!!
Read Susan Collin's statement which was just released.
The obvious difference is that in attempting to board an airplane, in which you are KNOWINGLY subjecting yourself to a reasonable search...
ReplyDeleteI don't think airport searches are at all reasonable. They search elderly women in wheelchairs and let swarthy arab types with scowling faces march through unmolested. The program is a joke, and I don't "freely consent" to participate in it at all. Unfortunately, if I don't participate, they won't let me fly.
In the same way, if you decide to talk to someone who is likely to be an al Qaeda suspect, you will be "searched" in the same way as we are in airports, i.e., without the benefit of a warrant to do so. That is the extent of the NSA program, and as such it remains a lawful, reasonable, and prudent program carried out in order to protect us all.
"I (and I suspect the vast majority of Americans who are paying attention to this) don't believe this program represents some rogue power grab by a wannabe dictator bent on absolute power."
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that either: I think it's just folly born of short-sightedness. But that doesn't change the fundamental fact that THE PRESIDENT ASSERTS THAT HE CAN BREAK LAWS HE DOESN'T AGREE WITH.
And I wouldn't use CAPS LOCK if you just dealt with the issue under discussion instead of posting inane strawman arguments. The president has broken the law. And he says that's ok, 'cause he's the president.
That's the issue, not anything else. NOT your need to feel safe. NOT your desire to make excuses. Deal with the fact or dispute it, but don't waste space. *ahem* Please?
I'm going to restate the issue, just one more time, so you can think about it without resorting to premolded "reasonable" answers or "Greenwald is a Bush hater" excuses not to think.
The President has broken the law and he thinks that's ok.
Do you think it's ok for the president of the United States to break the law and not be held accountable?
New talk today of a push to appoint a "Special Prosecutor" to investigate the NSA spying matter.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, would this be a good thing or a bad thing?
mds,
ReplyDeleteTry this:
"(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;"
Are you suggesting that Congress intended to provide a loophole, whereby agents of international terror groups coming from various nations that don't happen to fit within definitions 1,2, or 3, would have to be counted as U.S. persons?
Yeah, that makes sense...
BTW, I think (a)(4) and (5) are so obvious on their face that Congress probably assumed that anyone reading the statute would conclude that "a group [Foreign power] engaged in international terrorism" would not be counted among U.S. persons.
Let's apply your logic here. FISA does not include language stating that someone "'being linked' to terrorists is insufficient to waive the warrant provision" either, so we can safely throw that idea out the window.
Patrick Meighan,
None of us know all of the answers involving this classified program, but as I understand it the administration pursues leads, such as phone numbers and e-mail addresses, from captured terror suspects.
So either Congress must give the President absolute power for his NSA program or cut off funding
ReplyDeleteThis, by the way, is precisely what Yoo says in his book--that the only authority the Congress has in national security matters is the power of the purse.
We've seen that this administration violates those laws too. It would be very difficult to verify that a defunded black program had actually been terminated.
The only remedy is impeachment.
But why make even such a pathetic effort with the "deranged"?
ReplyDeleteIf you don't know the answer to this you should. We post here because there is an audience reading these posts that is much larger the few people who actually submit comments. I, and the other dissenters in this forum are talking to them, not you, and believe me, if we could reach them directly instead of having to interact with haters like you, we would.
Scoop Poopy Dog:
ReplyDeleteSee, now your piles have brought us flies.
Says your Homerotic.
Re: responses to Gedalifa:
ReplyDeletePlease do not feed the idiots. It helps to have a wheel mouse.
Thank you.
if we could reach them directly instead of having to interact with haters like you, we would.
ReplyDeleteYou could reach them, Gedalyia - go start your own blog. Why don't you? It isn't because you don't have the time, given how much you spend here.
It's because you know you would have no audience. Nobody would read you, because you're a stupid bore incapable of doing anything other than mindless reciting talking points. Why would anyone click onto your blog when they could just read Ken Mehlman's talking points.
He broke the law and stated that he intends to continue to do so. Is impeachment the only avenue available to us? I still can't grasp (or accept) the notion that a even a president can break the law with impunity.
ReplyDeleteRe: responses to Gedalifa:
ReplyDeletePlease do not feed the idiots. It helps to have a wheel mouse.
This is good advice. We should all ignore Gedalyia. He is really dumb and uninteresting. He can't do anything but spout Bush lines, and not even well. Other BUsh defenders, like Bart, make good points and do it interestingly. Gedalyia is just a moron craving attention.
I would urge Glenn to delete his crap. Short of that, I think we should ignore him. He just distracts from having better and more interesting conversations.
Bill Bennett on television now. Says the Port deal has created a huge rift in the Republican Party, which will get worse.
ReplyDeleteHe says the conservative pundits are "talking down" do their base, accusing them of xenophobia, etc.
Donna Brazile: bagwoman for the mob. Talking about putting lipstick on the pig and then approving it. They're all the same.
This is STAGGERING. The Coast Guard Intelligence Report said there were serious questions about the intelligence gaps in this Deal.
The Committee on Foreign Investment stated there were NO NATIONAL SECURITY questions involved that would suggest a 45 day review was needed.
You know what is amazing? The details of this deal were apparently first printed in the press in November!
Nobody noticed!
No wonder the President assumed it was going through, and put through all the money changing hands offshoots of this program, like the huge donation to the "Presidential Library" of Bush 41. Those Presidential Libraries really mean the pockets of those Presidents, which is so corrupt, but it is much less damaging when at least the President is no longer in power.
When his SON is in the White House, the enormity of the damage that these multi million dollar bribes (let's call it what it is)
can do is literally mindblowing.
Gussie:
ReplyDeleteI have a legal confusion:
Are all laws, er, legally constitutional until the Supreme Court says otherwise?.... I mean, simply because it's unconstitutional on its face doesn't mean it's not the law, does it?
No.
By definition, if Congress enacts a statute which is beyond its constitutional power, the statute is null and void from the outset.
Let's say that Congress enacts a statute eliminating the President's constitutional veto power. The President is not bound by that unconstitutional statute until he can wind a lawsuit up to the Supremes. Rather, the statute is an illegal exercise of Congress' power to enact legislation from the outset and can be simply ignored.
Let's say that Senator Kennedy brought suit in the courts to enforce the statute. All the President has to do is file a counter claim that the statute is unconstitutional. The court will find the statute to be unconstitutional and dismiss all claims against the President for violating that statute.
You cannot be held criminally liable for violating an unconstitutional statute just because a Court has yet to find it unconstitutional. Otherwise, no criminal defendant would waste his or her time filing a suit challenging the constitutionality of a statute.
To the extent that FISA limits or eliminates the President's long recognized Article II constitutional power to gather intelligence against foreign groups and their agents in the United States, FISA has been unconstitutional, and therefore null and void, since its enactment. Mr. Bush could not violate a null and void statute.
Patrick, David S., oilfieldguy, etc.:
ReplyDeleteThis is a HUGE story breaking. HUGE.
"There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment of the potential" merger," an undated Coast Guard intelligence assessment says.
"The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities," the document says.
Sen. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security committee, released an unclassified version of the document at a briefing Monday. With the deal under intense bipartisan criticism in Congress, the Bush administration agreed Sunday to DP World's request for a second review of the potential security risks related to its deal.
The document raised questions about the security of the companies' operations, the backgrounds of all personnel working for the companies, and whether other foreign countries influenced operations that affect security.
"This report suggests there were significant and troubling intelligence gaps," said Collins, R-Maine. "That language is very troubling to me."
Conservative Magazine reporting that Cheney will retire after 2006 elections.
ReplyDeleteWe all knew that would happen.
Now we get to see the face of the next enemy. Either Bush puts in an unelectable nincompoop to pave the way in 2008 for someone he really wants, or the new Bela Lugosi's face will be revealed to us.
If it's Frist, however, I won't be posting here anymore. I'll have killed myself.
Lewis Lapham:
ReplyDeleteThe Conyers report doesn't lack for further instances of the administration's misconduct, all of them noted in the press over the last three years—misuse of government funds, violation of the Geneva Conventions, holding without trial and subjecting to torture individuals arbitrarily designated as “enemy combatants,” etc.—but conspiracy to commit fraud would seem reason enough to warrant the President's impeachment. Before reading the report, I wouldn't have expected to find myself thinking that such a course of action was either likely or possible; after reading the report, I don't know why we would run the risk of not impeaching the man. We have before us in the White House a thief who steals the country's good name and reputation for his private interest and personal use; a liar who seeks to instill in the American people a state of fear; a televangelist who engages the United States in a never-ending crusade against all the world's evil, a wastrel who squanders a vast sum of the nation's wealth on what turns out to be a recruiting drive certain to multiply the host of our enemies. In a word, a criminal—known to be armed and shown to be dangerous.
Why did Conyers introduce a resolution to investigate grounds for impeachment?
“To take away the excuse,” he said, “that we didn't know.”
Gedaliya, you wrote:
ReplyDeleteThis is the precisely why I and others have no objection to the NSA program, i.e., the costs of the program (a slight diminution of my civil liberties) are ourweighed by the benefits derived thereof:...
Others have debated with you the "costs" of the program wrt loss of civil liberties. Some consider the costs great; you consider them small.
Let's discuss the benefits of the program. You obviously consider them great. What makes you so sure?
The benefits may, in fact, be very small. Quite possibly nil. And I specifically mean the delta between warrantless eavesdropping and eavesdropping with FISA judicial review.
That, in my mind, is the cruz of the matter. We all will sacrifice a small amount of liberty for a large degree of protection (e.g. airplane searches). The calculus of this case seems to be the opposite. The loss of liberty is large (not just the eavesdropping; rather accepting the administration's broad interpretation of it's powers).
You obviously trust the current administration to use best efforts to protect you. I (and many others) think that proposition is demonstrably false.
Devoman
Bush can't put in a substitute Vice President that he wants to be President in 2008.
ReplyDeleteHe wants to continue his programs, and will not tolerate a VP who questions any of those programs.
But by the time 2008 rolls around, all Republican Presidential candidates will be having to run at the speed of light away from the Bush administration.
I predict he puts in a sycophantic seatwarmer with no Presidential aspirations.
AkaDad said...
ReplyDeleteCritics of the president's NSA program wonder what limits are placed on a president who doesn't seek judicial review. Three come to mind: 1. Congress's ability to deny the program funding. 2. Congress's impeachment power. 3. Constitutional limits on a president's tenure."
1. I can't believe Levin is arguing, that Congress would not fund a program that spies on the enemy, as a limit on the President. He knows that everyone in Congress wants to spy on the enemy, but they want judicial oversight, not elimate the program outright. This is so intillectually dishonest.
Quite the opposite. If this program is such an illegal abomination, then the objective should be to stop funding for the program.
If the program is the best thing since sliced bread as members of both aisle have been telling the press, then what is the problem?
2. Congress could impeach the President, if he broke the law, but we all know, that a Republican Congress, will not impeach the leader of their own party, and he knows this too.
That is what elections are for. By all means have the Dems campaign on impeaching the President for "violating the law with illegal domestic spying." Glenn can write speeches for the Dems running on this platform. Of course, you and I and the Dem leaders know that the GOP would gain 20 seats after such a campaign...
Second, you can't impeach the President if there isn't an investigation, into the alleged criminal activity first.
The Dem leaders and members on the Intelligence committees have had the program described to them in detail. They have all they need to determine if the program violates the law and to submit articles of impeachment.
When the Dems talk about an "investigation," what they really mean is that they want copies of the documents giving advice to the President about the program so they can play gotchya for political reasons with dissenting views. They have been doing this for three years with Iraq.
None of that is necessary to submit articles of impeachment.
3. This is a weak argument because of the two points I have made above.
I agree. The fact that Mr. Clinton was leaving office in two years had no bearing in whether the Senate should or should not have convicted him of perjury and obstruction of justice according to the evidence.
Instead of pointing to Mr. Greenwald's summary and ignoring the greater issues involved here, why not discuss the larger issue?
ReplyDelete"The shift from responding to past events to preventing future harms is part of one of the most significant but unnoticed trends in the world today.”
This is not just a debate for the halls of Congress. Have you noticed the movement to lock up child molesters, arguably the most hated portion of the population, forever after their first offense? That movement is based on the same realization that McQ at QandO is talking about. The supporters of this sea change in our civil rights jurisprudence are saying that our current system, based on our traditional concept of Liberty, sacrifices the well-being of children for the well-being of their molesters. That is a trade that no caring person would ever make except in support of a higher value. Changing our jurisprudence as supporters of this legislation demand is the supporters’ way of saying: “I no longer believe that our traditional interpretation of this trade-off is such a higher value. If it has this result, they say, it is not “higher”. The true “higher value” is that 10,000 children go unmolested in exchange for one innocent person spending the rest of their life being incarcerated unjustly.”
Or, stated differently, “I finally understand the trade-off and I am willing to risk keeping a vigil to control the government rather than to suffer the known wrongs created by blindly demanding that government be shackled to keep it from potentially hurting me.”
Those who point to history to demand the shackling of government must ignore our history of suspending liberty during wartime and easily returning to prior restraints when the war was won. Are there reasonable ways to change? There are. We could pass legislation that crosses current civil rights lines that totally lapses after a period of time, which can only be renewed by a 90% vote of Congress. The SCOTUS can determine if new legislation passed after the lapse by a normal majority unconstitutionally re-legislates the expired law. We can find ways to make it work.
There will be two rough groups formed as a result of the acceptance of this new wisdom. Those who understand and those who do not. Right now it looks like those who understand will come from the center. Those who don’t (or, more accurately, won’t) will come from the far left and the far right. Read the blog comments. Those who declaim any deviation from the current Bill of Rights, ever, ever, ever are the ones who don’t understand. These folks are willing to be responsible for the molestation of a great many children and the deaths of a great many Americans. The facts clearly establish the truth of that statement. We have only to offer the needed legislation to determine who these “don’t confuse me with the facts, I stand on the Constitution” people are.
This is the major issue that will drive the coming political realignment of voters in the U.S. Politicians who “get it” and announce that they “get it” (the enlightened “I am nervous too, but we must change” people) will receive votes from the entire political spectrum, regardless of their stand on less important issues. On the other side will be the “Liberty”, Constitution-waving, civil rights demagogues (such as Mr. Greenwald, for one). Most likely millions must die before the demagogues are consigned to history.
See that cute ultra-lite airplane that the guy unloaded and assembled in 15 minutes in the Chicago parking lot while everyone stood around and admired it? See it taking off with the sorta-large tool-box stowed under the seat? See it heading straight for the Sears Tower?
Let’s interview a bystander: “Well, yeah, I saw the guy was an Arab and I could have called 911 to have a cop swing by and check him out, but I don’t believe in “profiling”. And hey! it’s important to protect everyone’s right to assemble whatever they want wherever they want to. And there is no law against assembling an ultra-light in a parking lot...”[remainder of Liberty-lover’s comment lost in nuclear blast wave]. Yes, I know, the Arab could have just driven the bomb to downtown Chicago and set if off. The imagery of the Tower is more compelling and for my example I needed some idiot to not call the cops.
If you are a passenger today and your plane is hijacked do you counsel everyone to just remain calm and make no trouble and you will all be all right? So people CAN learn. One wonders how many must die before we learn the lesson outlined by Mr. Dershowitz.
fly: "None of us know all of the answers involving this classified program, but as I understand it the administration pursues leads, such as phone numbers and e-mail addresses, from captured terror suspects."
ReplyDeleteSays who? The administration itself.
Verified by who? Nobody.
Accountable to who? No one.
Trusted by who? the fly.
Trusted by Patrick Meighan? Nope.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
bart:
ReplyDeleteThe President is not bound by that unconstitutional statute until he can wind a lawsuit up to the Supremes.
But who gets to decide if the satute is unconstitutional? It seems that under your argument, the Executive can ignore any laws IT deems unconstitutional.
Should it not execute the laws as passed by Congress, unless it can argue in the Supreme Court that the laws are unconstitutional? Isn't there a presumption of guilt issue in your argument?
Can this same argument be made about any citizen (after all, you are not arguing that the Executive is above the laws, are you?)? Can I deem a law unconstitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise?
Not snark. Real questions.
Bart said,
ReplyDelete"Quite the opposite. If this program is such an illegal abomination, then the objective should be to stop funding for the program.
If the program is the best thing since sliced bread as members of both aisle have been telling the press, then what is the problem?"
How many times have I, and others explained to you, that the program is a good thing, but only if there is checks and balances, so we don't produce another Nixon Presidency, among the other various reasons already explained to you.
I find amusing all the gnashing of teeth here complaining about the President's "absolute authority" over gathering intelligence...
ReplyDeleteIf you have even skimmed the Constitution, you may have noticed that each branch has been granted plenary authority over different aspects of the government which the other two branches do nbo share...
Whining about the President having absolute authority the President having "absolute authority" as CiC over gathering intelligence is as patently silly as complaining about Congress having "absolute authority" to enact spending bills or the courts having "absolute authority" to hear cases in controversy.
celo said...
ReplyDeletebart:
Not snark. Real questions.
And I will treat them as such...
The President is not bound by that unconstitutional statute until he can wind a lawsuit up to the Supremes.
But who gets to decide if the satute is unconstitutional? It seems that under your argument, the Executive can ignore any laws IT deems unconstitutional.
The Courts have the final say over whether a statute is constitutional.
Therefore, the President or you and I roll the dice if we think that a criminal statute is unconstitutional and then go ahead and violate the statute. If criminal charges are brought, then there are two results - the court finds the statute unconstitutional and you go free or you get convicted and maybe go to jail.
Folks, the way the constitutionality of criminal statutes is generally challenged is through the motions and appeals of those defendants charged with violating them.
Should it not execute the laws as passed by Congress, unless it can argue in the Supreme Court that the laws are unconstitutional?
Let me give you an admittedly extreme hypothetical...
What if Congress enacted a statute making all people who post on this blog the slaves of Karl Rove? Should the President send out the federal marshals to clap you in chains or should he ignore this obviously unconstitutional statute?
bart: "If this program is such an illegal abomination, then the objective should be to stop funding for the program."
ReplyDeleteCongress has already done that, with a Pentagon program called TIA. Congress specifically defunded it. And so the administration relocated it to a different administrative branch, renamed it, and restarted the program.
In other words, your assurance that Congress has the ability to "stop funding for the program" is a hollow one.
Any other ideas on how Congress can provide a check on this President's self-claimed power?
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
AkaDad said...
ReplyDeleteHow many times have I, and others explained to you, that the program is a good thing, but only if there is checks and balances, so we don't produce another Nixon Presidency, among the other various reasons already explained to you.
As discussed in my post above, the Congress already has the constitutional powers of oversight, funding and impeachment.
Delegating the power and responsibility of oversight to the FISA court does not add anything to the checks and balances.
Rather, it is a political copout from having to make decisions concerning funding and impeachment, not to mention it is an unconstitutional delegation of power.
Folks, if you're in a battle to the death and you are armed with a slingshot, then someone offers you a gun, TAKE IT. Not to do so is suicidal.
ReplyDeleteAlert Name: NSA spying
The breakaway Republicans
02/27/06 11:43 AM, EST
The closest thing to a working political antenna at the White House these days may be the one on Dan Bartlett's car radio. Congressional anger over President George W. Bush's decision to allow a Dubai-owned company to operate terminals at major U.S. ports had been at a low boil for days before the White House got its first inkling of the furor: Bartlett, the presidential counselor, happened to tune in to conservative talk-show host Michael Savage on the way home from work. By the time the President moved to quash it several days later with assurances that he wouldn't have allowed the deal "if there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States," it was far too late to quell the Republican rebellion. "This freight train had already left the station," says a Bush aide. And the President's threat to use his first-ever veto was no obstacle to its momentum.
Go to CNN for the rest of this story.
Patrick Meighan said...
ReplyDeletebart: "If this program is such an illegal abomination, then the objective should be to stop funding for the program."
Congress has already done that, with a Pentagon program called TIA. Congress specifically defunded it. And so the administration relocated it to a different administrative branch, renamed it, and restarted the program.
In other words, your assurance that Congress has the ability to "stop funding for the program" is a hollow one.
Any other ideas on how Congress can provide a check on this President's self-claimed power?
That one is easy.
In order to fund the renamed program, the WH would have had to convince Congress to fund the line item for that program.
I am not familiar with the program to which you are referring. However, I would hazard a guess that a particular congressional committee defunded the original program for whatever reason so the WH moved the program to another department out of the purview of the hostile committee and had funding approved by another more friendly committee and then the full Congress.
I'm having serious doubts that Bart understands the concept of oversight.
ReplyDelete"Trust me" just doesn't cut it. The President says trust me, that we have shared all intelligence with Congress.
Trust me that we are only spying on terrorists, and not our political enemies. Trust me when I tell you, that getting a warrant retroactively hinders, or hurts our effort, in stopping terrorism. Trust the Republican controlled majority to provide checks and balances on the leader of their own party.
It's like talking to a wall...
It took exactly one weekend for Hillary Clinton, that whorish bagwoman for the mob, to roll over and agree NOT to introduce legislation to block this Port deal.
ReplyDeleteShe, Chuck Schumer and Bill Frist made nicey when Bill Frist explained to Hillary what her share will be of the billions of dollars that will go into the pockets of the military industrial complex to wage this upcoming fight with Iran.
Do not believe a single word of the propaganda about Iran, nukes, etc., which the War Propoganda Machine has trotted out today to obscure the Port Deal.
Spend some time checking out various superb blogs on the Internet.
MAKE NO MISTAKE.
Port Deal=Military Strike against Iran, with the aid of UAE, one of the biggest arms manufacturers in the world and a launching platform to assist in the War against Iran.
That's why Bush won't back down. He will not be deterred from promoting the insane neocon agenda and initiating an unprovoked war against Iran.
If that happens, and we are lied into a suicidal, immoral, insane War against Iran, a country which has not and is not using force against us, and Israel is a partner to this corrupt conspiracy to attack Iran, then could anyone really condemn Iran for going ahead with its threat to nuke Israel?
How many lives and trillions of dollars are we going to throw away before we hold these lunatic neocons to task?
Also, I see no problem with Russia helping Iran to develop nuclear energy? Who said we get to control the world? I thought the argument was we cannot trust these "radical
Islamic fundamentalists" to develop nuclear energy.
Well, last I looked Russis in an ally of ours, and they are not Islamic.
I'd rather have them involved than
start an immoral war against Iran.
If we can't win in Iraq, can you imagine the horror show that a war in Iran will introduce?
bart: "If this program is such an illegal abomination, then the objective should be to stop funding for the program."
ReplyDeleteMe: "Congress has already done that, with a Pentagon program called TIA. Congress specifically defunded it. And so the administration relocated it to a different administrative branch, renamed it, and restarted the program.
bart: "I am not familiar with the program to which you are referring."
You're not familiar with the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program? It seems a little schooling is in order. From the National Journal (2/23/06):
"A controversial counter-terrorism program, which lawmakers halted more than two years ago amid outcries from privacy advocates, was stopped in name only and has quietly continued within the intelligence agency now fending off charges that it has violated the privacy of U.S. citizens.
Research under the Defense Department's Total Information Awareness program -- which developed technologies to predict terrorist attacks by mining government databases and the personal records of people in the United States -- was moved from the Pentagon's research-and-development agency to another group, which builds technologies primarily for the National Security Agency, according to documents obtained by National Journal and to intelligence sources familiar with the move."
But bart assures us: "I would hazard a guess that a particular congressional committee defunded the original program for whatever reason so the WH moved the program to another department out of the purview of the hostile committee and had funding approved by another more friendly committee and then the full Congress."
However, it seems that bart's guess is wrong, as Congress itself appears unaware that it has somehow reapproved said program.
Again, from the National Journal:
"...earlier this month, at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, one of TIA's strongest critics questioned whether intelligence officials knew that some of its programs had been moved to other agencies. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., asked Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte and FBI Director Robert Mueller whether it was "correct that when [TIA] was closed, that several ... projects were moved to various intelligence agencies.... I and others on this panel led the effort to close [TIA]; we want to know if Mr. Poindexter's programs are going on somewhere else."
Negroponte and Mueller said they didn't know. But Negroponte's deputy, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who until recently was director of the NSA, said, "I'd like to answer in closed session." Asked for comment, Wyden's spokeswoman referred to his hearing statements."
And so, bart, I ask you again...
If this administration is secretly and unilaterally restarting Congressionally defunded programs (by merely shifting them to other administrative departments), then how exactly can Congress provide a check on this President's self-claimed power?
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
All: I sense that many feel as I do, that getting bogged down in these repetitive debates in every thread over whether the law was violated is not advancing the important aspects of the NSA debate, which has moved well past where some of these Bush apologists would have us stay -- if we let them.
ReplyDeleteOf course, people are obviously free and probably will always remain free to talk here about whatever they want -- Glenn is not the kind of guy who polices his site, and that is as I like it. And, there is probably value in disabusing the falsehoods of the Bush followers over whether the law was broken, but having the same few people make the same robotic claims over and over - which they are making not because they want to engage debate but because they can't stand to hear their Leader criticized, and because they think they are communicating something essential to lurkers-- engaging them is not really productive. It distracts from getting things done and from advancing the analysis and conversation.
Anyone who reads this blog knows all the arguments pro and con on whether the President broke the law. Nobody needs to hear a handful of Bush apologists mindlessly recite the same talking points in every post, no matter what Glenn writes. If we ignore them, they will distract the discussion much less. They can be referred to the Compendium of NSA Arguments, and we can leave it at that -- unless they offer something truly new.
Having different people with different opinions is good and makes for robust discussion. Having the same people mouth the same claims every day is just boring and unproductive.
So, I request a moratorium on engaging them. Just a request, and all are of course free to tell me to jump in the lake.
Glenn! Pay attention! This Port deal CLOSES this Thursday. The 45 day review happens AFTER the deal is closed. It's worthless, less than cosmetic, a con on the American public.
ReplyDeleteThis is so much bigger than the whole illegal NSA spying deal.
We are being witness here to the astronomical brute force, the thugish power, the breathlessly limitless power of this tyrant and all his enablers.
I have never seen anything more astounding in my life!
bart: "In order to fund the renamed program, the WH would have had to convince Congress to fund the line item for that program."
ReplyDeleteThis is exceptionally naiive. Plenty of administrations have executed Congressionally-defunded programs by merely laundering funds through other administrative departments. The Reagan Administration's fund-laundering in the wake of the Boland Ammendment being the first example to come off the top of my head.
Let's discuss the benefits of the program. You obviously consider them great. What makes you so sure?
ReplyDeleteThink of the alternative, that we found telephone numbers on the computers of captured al Qaeda members and did not attempt to monitor communications over those lines. To not have done so would have been, in my view, a criminal abrogation of responsibility by those in charge of our security.
Is the program cost-effective? I don't know, but at least fourteen congressional leaders know, and none that I know of has called for an end to the program. Therefore, my assumption that the program is effective is more than reasonable, and as such I am willing to trade a small measure of my civil liberties to ensure that it continues.
You obviously trust the current administration to use best efforts to protect you. I (and many others) think that proposition is demonstrably false.
Indeed I do, and the fact we've had no major attacks since 9/11 is one measure of the effectiveness of the administration's efforts to destroy al Qaeda here and abroad.
Some people on this blog believe that we face no threat at all from al Qaeda, and others actually believe that George Bush is a greater threat to our security than Osama Bin Laden. Some believe the threat is overblown, or is a mere police problem. At worst, some here actually believe that we deserve what we get from al Qaeda and should suffer defeat at their hands.
Since I, for one, do believe we face a mortal threat from al Qaeda, I have no qualms sacrificing a few of our liberties in the struggle to defeat this enemy. Because I believe this, I will fight tooth and claw to ensure that the president and his team is given all the tools it needs to carry the fight to al Qaeda.
You know folks, those people are simply not going to go away, no matter how deeply you thrust your head into the sand.
I have never seen anything more astounding in my life!
ReplyDeleteYou should have been here, in Manhattan, on September 11, 2001. You may have found yourself even more "astounded" than you claim to be today.
hypatia, it goes beyond what you write.
ReplyDeleteGlenn has shot out of the gate and created one of the, or maybe even the most effective blogs on the Internet to discuss these issues.
These few are undermining Glenn's effectiveness, which is their intent.
Do you think someone like Marty Lederman is going to come here and read the comments and wade through all that crap?
You mistake their purpose. They don't write because of blind allegiance to Bush. They are footsoldiers sent here to destroy this blog. Pure and simple.
I brought this up weeks ago, and Glenn wrote his post about how they should stay, but he WAS WRONG.
He is too busy to keep tract of how they are succeeding in turning this blog into The Huffington Post comment sections: unreadable, in a word.
Moreover, it is NOT just those same few. Many of the "anonymous" posters who continue to debate them are part of that same group of posters. Can't you see that?
I already posted here that I know who gedaliya is, although I don't know who bart is.
Gedaliya is a female who works for one of the more strident offices of the Bush administration.
She is being paid to interfere with the meaningful and productive debate on this and other blogs which Bushco considers threats.
This should stop.
"The Administration is interested in solidifying its law-breaking powers and insisting on the right to act without having to adhere to the law."
ReplyDeleteImpeach!
Just in!
ReplyDeleteLou Dobbs reports that the Dubai group taking over the ports contacted CNN and told them to "SHUT UP LOU DOBBS."
Another case of trying to shut down any avenue of information which speaks out agains the Fuhrer.
Isn't this the same as the investigation into the whistleblower in California, and the attempt to suppress the press by pursuing this investigation of the New York Times for leaking this secret program?
Lou Dobbs is calling the government patsy who is defending the government now a duplicitous liar, in effect.
Lou Dobbs has come right out and said that no foreign government, in ANY circumstances, should control our ports.
But in three days, 22 of our ports are going to be operated by a foreign government with close ties to the Bush family and a spotty record on terrorism.
HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?
WHY COULDN'T SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, BLOCK THIS DEAL?
Am I dreaming?
PS. I don't think we'll be hearing that Bush sycophant and Muslim hating neocon who masquarades as a libertarian, Eugene Volokh,that supposed champion of free speech, reporting on the UAE's demand that CNN "shut up Lou Dobbs."
Has anyone checked out the comments on that site lately? It really makes David Duke look like a tolerant pussycat.
Patrick Meighan said...
ReplyDeleteYou're not familiar with the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program?
I wasn't familiar with the acronym which you used. I am aware of the program and the variations which have been made public - Echelon, Able Danger and now this NSA Program.
It seems a little schooling is in order. From the National Journal (2/23/06):
"A controversial counter-terrorism program, which lawmakers halted more than two years ago amid outcries from privacy advocates, was stopped in name only and has quietly continued within the intelligence agency now fending off charges that it has violated the privacy of U.S. citizens.
Do you think just maybe that this program was moved and renamed with Congress' full knowledge and support because it is a very useful program?
Congress had to approve the finding for each iteration of this program and seemed to be well aware of each of these iterations when they were leaked.
Again, from the National Journal:
"...earlier this month, at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, one of TIA's strongest critics questioned whether intelligence officials knew that some of its programs had been moved to other agencies. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., asked Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte and FBI Director Robert Mueller whether it was "correct that when [TIA] was closed, that several ... projects were moved to various intelligence agencies.... I and others on this panel led the effort to close [TIA]; we want to know if Mr. Poindexter's programs are going on somewhere else."
Negroponte and Mueller said they didn't know. But Negroponte's deputy, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who until recently was director of the NSA, said, "I'd like to answer in closed session." Asked for comment, Wyden's spokeswoman referred to his hearing statements."
So what?
This has been one of the most highly classified programs since its creation because it is an amazingly effective tool for gathering intelligence in our newly automated information society.
The existence of this program was very closely held to the fewest people possible. Of the three witnesses on the panel, it does not surprise me that only one knew the answer to Mr. Wyden's incredibly stupid question. It also doesn't surprise me that Mr. Wyden was brain dead enough to ask about these programs in open session. THIS is exactly why Mr. Bush only briefed the heads of Congress and the heads of the intelligence committees.
One thing I think that no one has pointed out yet is the fact that Bush has not only broken the law but he has also violated his oath of office, in which he swore to uphold the constitution.
ReplyDeleteThat means all of the constitution not just the parts he decides to uphold.
Further, the only way he can legally abrogate the bill of rights is by constitutional amendment which requires ratification by 3/4 of the states if I remember correctly.
I already posted here that I know who gedaliya is, although I don't know who bart is.
ReplyDeleteGedaliya is a female who works for one of the more strident offices of the Bush administration.
Altho I sense something feminine -- or perhaps effete would be a better word -- in his/her comentary, I don't think it necessary to argue he/she/it is a Bush paid shill. Really, sad as it is to believe, there just are people who are that blinded by the light of Bush worship that they will carry on like that, all on their own, and do so gratis, for The Cause.
National Review and Powerline do have substantial readerships, you know. It would not be all that shocking if a few of that Bushbot cadre settled here. And really, if Rove wanted to plant someone, he has the bucks to purchase voices that are much more sophisticated in their analyses and tactics.
But whatever the case, I don't like the idea of banning people, and would opose it in all but the most extreme circumstances (not that that is my call to make). We are all free to agree, however, to simply ignore him/her/it.
All: I sense that many feel as I do, that getting bogged down in these repetitive debates in every thread over whether the law was violated is not advancing the important aspects of the NSA debate, which has moved well past where some of these Bush apologists would have us stay -- if we let them.
ReplyDeleteYou're losing the debate where it counts, in the halls of congress and in the public press. There was no law violated, there is no "scandal," and within a few short weeks this entire episode will fade into oblivion as the nation politically resolves this relatively minor dispute.
By then the 2006 election cycle will be in full swing and the focus of this blog will turn away from these arcane and silly subjects to those with far more substance. One of the most important of these issues will be a debate whether it is the Republicans or the Democrats who is more capable and effective in protecting us from our enemies.
That's the debate we should be having, and the one I suspect Glenn will turn his attention to in the weeks to come.
Patrick Meighan said...
ReplyDeletebart: "In order to fund the renamed program, the WH would have had to convince Congress to fund the line item for that program."
This is exceptionally naiive. Plenty of administrations have executed Congressionally-defunded programs by merely laundering funds through other administrative departments. The Reagan Administration's fund-laundering in the wake of the Boland Ammendment being the first example to come off the top of my head.
Actually, that illustrates my point. The Boland Amendment forced the Reagan WH to raise outside funding for the Contras both through direct solicitation of foreign governments and by buying and reselling US military scrap to Iran.
As an aside, they ripped off the Iranians very badly. The TOW I rockets they sold to Iran for triple market value were being scrapped because they were so old that they usually malfunctioned. I practiced with some of these weapons in the mid 80s as training rounds and, when they would launch at all, they would fly off into space.
I brought this up weeks ago, and Glenn wrote his post about how they should stay, but he WAS WRONG.
ReplyDeleteActually, your summary of what I said isn't entirely accurate. What I said was this:
At 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.
I don't believe in deleting comments or banning anyone (other than for extreme acts of deliberate disruption, a standard I would apply very permissively). So I leave it to every participant here to decide for themselves which commenters are worth engaging and which ones ought to be ignored.
I agree with Hypatia that debating every day whether the President violated the law by re-hashing the same elementary claims with people whose state of knowledge is back in December and who aren't interested in actual discussion is both futile and even boring, and some of the people who come here to argue over and over that Bush's behavior was legal are incapable of getting past the first line of Bush talking points and they therefore don't advance the discussion any - and, in many instances, they distract from it.
I just think it's the responsibility of the participants here to identify whose arguments merit attention and whose don't, rather than having me delete or ban people whose contributions I don't find valuable.
I think people may be misreading Bill Kristol's and William Buckley's recent statements about why we are being defeated in Iraq.
ReplyDeleteI suspect they are making the early arguments for why it can succeed if we mount massive force against Iran, contrasted to our "inadequate" efforts in Iraq.
Call Carl Levin. Support his efforts to block this Port deal (Step one in the War against Iran) from going through this Thursday. He says if the sale goes through on Thursday, it's all over but the shouting.
If you want to control the trolls, you'll need to mark each troll post with a brief comment, such as
ReplyDelete"Gedaliya is a troll, please don't feed trolls."
Both bart and gedaliya have excellent skills for luring people into repetitive garbage permathreads. The bit by gedaliya about airport searches is just classic. Utter bullshit that is so easy to refute, that the refutations come. And come...
Tragedy of the commons, and all that. Given our host's relationship to the idea of free speech, probably inevitable.
My question is, and I apologize but I have not read Specter's bullshit nor the previous posts so if I am repeating something or am ignorant of facts that would allay my following statements, feel free to ignore me but, again, my question is:
ReplyDeleteWhat is to stop King George from simply signing the thing into law and then going about his usual "above the law? fuck that, I am the law" business and ignore the damn thing as is his wont to do? Why should he care? He has already set the precedent. The constitution is only a piece of paper. America is only America if he says so and if it is fashioned in his image and ideology.
Speaking as a completely irate, gun toting, independent voting "average American" I think you all not taking these issues/him seriously enough. This man, the neo-cons and the completely impotent "opposition" are ruining/have ruined this country in almost every way imaginable and, beginning with Bush/Cheney, need to be removed from office immediately. It is past the time for compromise and blather. It is past the time for caring how this will affect anyone politically. The mere fact that we discuss the political ramifications of issues like this patently illegal program show us to be totally submissive. We the people are supposed to be in control. We are supposed to be represented. Are we? Bart apparently is. They say the neo-con base is solid at about 20%. That leaves the vast majority of Americans, and almost the entirety of the rest of the world for that matter, with a giant dick up our ass.
Glenn I visit your site every day. I appreciate what you do. You know the law. I respect the law but at some point if the law makers and the executers of the law do not then what is our recourse? I know you have said, in so many words, that things of this nature take time but, in my estimation, we are out of time. If there is not sufficient outrage at this point to remove these criminals from office then there never will be. Jefferson and the founding fathers would have already eviscerated these criminals. I am a former US Marine who loves his country and despises his countrymen. We the people are sheep.
Remember: the two keys to securing accountability for the Bush Administration's FISA lawbreaking are 1) proceed with meaningful investigations; and 2) squash the Nixon Law.
ReplyDeleteDavid - I would find the Specter less objectionable if: (a) I believed that the Administration would comply with its provisions for oversight, reporting and substantive limitations on eavesdropping; and (b) I believed that a full-scale investigation would still take place into the past law-breaking and that enactment of this statute would not slow down the momentum for such an investigation and/or measures to hold the Administration accountable.
Most people have said that if FISA were too cumbersome to allow necessary eavesdropping, the solution was to revise or amend it. To the extent Specter is trying to do that, that's one thing. To the extent this is a way to resolve the issue so that the President broke the law with impunity, that's another matter entirely. I know you agree with that part.
I think the Nixon law is dead. Too many Republicans have already said that they will not support it for it to have any chance of passing. I also think this Specter legislation won't pass because the White House and their apologists will be vehemently opposed to it.
That's why I think these events are positive - there is still no end to the scandal in sight.
hypatia: Altho I sense something feminine -- or perhaps effete would be a better word -- in his/her comentary, I don't think it necessary to argue he/she/it is a Bush paid shill.
ReplyDeleteUnso. I told you, I know who she is. I didn't mean, "I know the type", I said I know who Gedaliya is.
She's not paid by the hour. She gets a salary, and her "job" is, among other things, to disrupt anti-Bush blogs.
Anyway, Glenn rules and is a doll. Let's all agree not to address Gedaliya, either when she's using that name, or she's posting as some anonymous who pretends to take the other side of argument, so she'll have something to respond to.
RH - Great post and, trust me, I understand your sentiments entirely. But as for this:
ReplyDeleteIf there is not sufficient outrage at this point to remove these criminals from office then there never will be.
I actually have faith in Americans that if the case is made to them clearly and aggressively that the Administration has seized the power to break the law and that their theories are radical and decisively un-American, they will oppose and be outraged by this much more than they are now. That case just hasn't been made. I believe it will be.
gedalyia said...
ReplyDelete[This is] a reasonable compromise of our civil rights in order to reduce the risk of attack from our mortal enemies
And big, strong, nearly unfettered daddy Bush is going to decide the extent of the compromise(s) so long as we're at "war", eh? It's been said but it bears repeating - North Korea. Look into it.
bart said...
To the extent that FISA limits or eliminates the President's long recognized Article II constitutional power to gather intelligence against foreign groups and their agents in the United States, FISA has been unconstitutional, and therefore null and void, since its enactment. Mr. Bush could not violate a null and void statute.
Nixon also tried to claim his wiretapping fell under "national security" and therefore his Article II powers because America was at war. He ONLY made the mistake of getting caught, and guess what? After much investigation and soul-searching, Congress and the President passed FISA so as to explicitly avoid such blatantly unconstitutional executive activity from possibly occurring again.
I suppose we can then surmise that you think Nixon was handed a really raw deal, what with his Article II powers desecrated and all.
Poor, poor Nixon.
Gedaliya, thank you for responding to my post. Here are my thoughts on your response:
ReplyDeleteThink of the alternative, that we found telephone numbers on the computers of captured al Qaeda members and did not attempt to monitor communications over those lines. To not have done so would have been, in my view, a criminal abrogation of responsibility by those in charge of our security.
You illustrate my point. It's easy to come up with a purely theoretical "win" to the program. If only we had done X we would have prevented the catastrophe. But there are a million possibly X's. There's really no way to know what the "win" is so we have to subject everything we do to a cost/benefit analysis.
And I specifically said the benefit has to be in the delta between warrantless eavesdropping and that subject to judicial review. Yes, I know, you can imagine such a scenario, but in the real world how likely are we to see it?
Indeed I do, and the fact we've had no major attacks since 9/11 is one measure of the effectiveness of the administration's efforts to destroy al Qaeda here and abroad.
I'm sorry, but this is in the realm of logical fallacy. There was no terrorist attack on our homeland during the Clinton administration. Does this mean he did a good job fighting Al Qaeda? No, we know he did not; the 9/11 attack was planned on his time.
If the next attack is being planned now and happens either next week or during the next administration, then part of the responsibility falls on the Bush adminsitration. I don't make this point to fault the current adminsitration, only to make the point that the absence of an attack up to this point in time means absolutely nothing.
To put it another way, since 9/11 I've been wearing my tin foil hat. See how well it's working?
Now to those dumping on Gedaliya (e.g. anon@8:33): I'm sorry but I have no interest in a forum where all we do is congratulate each other on how smart we are. What makes things interesting is debating with those who disagree with us. I use the debate to test and refine my own thoughts and assertions.
Gedaliya, one last point... I like to think I have an open mind and my opinion can be changed if the evidence is strong enough. How about you? Can your opinion be changed or are you here simply to score points for the administration as anon@8:33 charges?
If the former, tell us, is there a line that the administration could cross (even in the name of fighting terrorism) that would switch your opinion? A line beyond which you'll say, "No! you've gone too far. The benefit isn't worth the cost". If so, what might that line be?
"n sum, under our current system of Government, what used to be called a "law" is now more like a contractual offer or a suggestion"
ReplyDeleteDid they not say recently something to the effect of "Our Government will be pleased to listen to your suggestions", as in Bush talking to Congress? So they already explicitly view Congresional action as suggestions.
rn, yes, fabulous post.
ReplyDeleteGlenn is an optimist. You and I are alarmists. Whether alarm makes more sense now than optimism, we'll find out.
In Glenn's defense, I suppose it's only the optimists who change things. Everyone else is so overwhelmed by the enormity of the injustice, they withdraw.
But I do agree we are out of time.
Whatever happens, things have to start picking up steam now, or it may be too late.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"Glenn has shot out of the gate and created one of the, or maybe even the most effective blogs on the Internet to discuss these issues.
These few are undermining Glenn's effectiveness, which is their intent.
You mistake their purpose. They don't write because of blind allegiance to Bush. They are footsoldiers sent here to destroy this blog. Pure and simple.
I brought this up weeks ago, and Glenn wrote his post about how they should stay, but he WAS WRONG."
I didn't see Glen's post but I have to agree that they should stay. If you start to ban people because of what they have to say then you become like them in that you are condoning violating the bill of rights by limiting free speech.
The true test of the first amendment is not in listening to those with whom you agree but in listening to those that you most vehemently disagree with.
I believe that it was Patrick Henry (somebody can correct me if I'm wrong) that said: I disagree with what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
The latest CBS News poll finds President Bush's approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 34 percent, while pessimism about the Iraq war has risen to a new high.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opinion/polls/main1350874.shtml
So just why do we have to accept defeat on these issues and "cave in" to the pResident's demand to be above the law?
Someone is going to have to explain this to me again...
gris lobo. While I agree with the spirit of your post, I point out that granting limitless free speech is not something blog hosts are bound by.
ReplyDeleteAlso, there is one thing to listening to an opponent's arguments. That's of course a positive.
But having to listen to a broken record which is stuck in one position, day after day, is really a torture technique worthy of John Yoo. If our government had used that in Abu Ghraib, the detainees would probably all have killed themselves. Especially if that record was of Bartaliya :)
Now I know why there are a few trolls that like to hang around here spewing administration talking points and other lies.
ReplyDeleteTHEY OBVIOUSLY CANNOT FIND ENOUGH AMERICAN'S THAT AGREE WITH THEIR FACIST VERSION OF AMERICA...
34% approval, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
We know that 25% of the population suffers from mental illness at one time in their lives....
So how do you explain the other 9%?
violated his oath of office
ReplyDeleteOh didn't you hear? Since he was not actually elected in 2000 and stole the election again in 2004, the ceremony and oath was just for show.
Non-elected chimperors are not required to uphold the honor, dignity, or integrity of office.
And the constitution is just a "damn piece of paper"
Re: Steve's post:
ReplyDeleteIt really baffles me how so many people think we were never attacked by terrorists on American soil during the Clinton administration. Why, they even attacked the exact same building as on 9/11!
Point well taken. But it doesn't negate the larger point I was making. Failure to have an attack "so far" means nothing.
Devoman
The Administration is interested in solidifying its law-breaking powers and insisting on the right to act without having to adhere to the law
ReplyDeleteAnd anyone is surprised? Like they stole 2 presidential elections so that they could FOLLOW the law?
Chimpy's popularity is now at 34% and falling -- does anyone really have to wonder why the neocons are proclaiming they are above the law?
They were:
*Wrong on their excuse for not catching bin ladin (ummmmmm, yeah, right; he's hiding)
*Wrong on the Iraq invasion.
*Wrong on Abu Ghraib.
*Wrong on the swiftboat vets.
*Wrong on Social Security
*Wrong on the economy
*Wrong wrong on endless tax cuts for the rich
*Wrong on fiscal responsibility
*Wrong on Terri Shiavo.
*Wrong on New Orleans.
*Wrong on Plamegate.
*Wrong on the FISA law.
*Wrong on the "war on terra."
*Wrong on national secutiry
*Wrong on selling our ports (not just 6, count then 21; not to an Arab company, to an Arab government)
Looks like higher crimes against this country, treason, war crimes, and crimes against humanity is their only "hope" to maintain power and excape accountability.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"gris lobo. While I agree with the spirit of your post, I point out that granting limitless free speech is not something blog hosts are bound by."
Of course blog hosts are not bound by it. I just point out that if you want to argue that others are breaking the law and violating the bill of rights that it is best not to be a hypocrite about it by restricting those same rights on your blog.
Even if it becomes tiresome and tedious you always have the option to ignore the posts made by those you disagree with. Free speech doesn't guarantee that anyone will listen or reply to what you have said. It only guarantees you the right to express your opinion, even if it sounds like a broken record :)
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteviolated his oath of office
Oh didn't you hear? Since he was not actually elected in 2000 and stole the election again in 2004, the ceremony and oath was just for show.
Non-elected chimperors are not required to uphold the honor, dignity, or integrity of office.
And the constitution is just a "damn piece of paper"
LOL, I guess I could use the Libby defense, that I was too busy doing really important stuff and forgot. :)
Glenn said:
ReplyDelete"I actually have faith in Americans that if the case is made to them clearly and aggressively that the Administration has seized the power to break the law and that their theories are radical and decisively un-American, they will oppose and be outraged by this much more than they are now. That case just hasn't been made. I believe it will be.
It is going to take change in our Democratic leadership. The current Democratic leadership has shown no ability to stay focussed, stay "principalled" (as opposed to taking the politically expedient position of the day) and combat the Republican/Rove message machine.
My belief is that this legislation will die or the Administration will sign in and do what they did with the torture bill (presidential side letter).
There are only two ways this scandal will be the undoing of the Adminsitration. One is the mid-term elcetions return control of Congress to the Democrats. The Dems will get some additional seats for sure (more people are paying attention) but Iit is too early to tell whether the number of contested seats is sufficiently large enough and the coming backlash sufficiently strong enough for the Dems to get control. In this case the investigative powers of Congress will effectively halt the Adminstration agenda. Impeachment, while it should happen, will tear this country apart since both Bush and Cheney would need to be impeached. In that case a Democrat would be Prez (since the House would be Dem controlled)and this would be seen as nothing short of a power coup by the Repubs.
The other possibility is that a third party candidate (see Alan Greenspan's comment released today about increasing polarization within the parties leading to an opening for a centrist third party candidate). If this candidate is enormously well financed he might have a chance, but the effect would again be damaging to the country because this candidate would have no Congressional support and the entrenched powers would fight him/her on everything.
Third possibility is Repubs/neocons keep control. I know I said the country is screwed in the other two scenarios, but this one is too scary to even contemplate...
My own personal belief is that Dems will capture at least on house of Congress in 2006, no impeachment will take place and the partisan rancor will be heightened. 2008 will be the ugliest most expensive election ever with a wide open field , the media will finally be forced to do its job and the country will have to make a choice. If the message machine wins, then we get what we deserve.
I want to support Feingold right now, but I need to understand his positions and electability better, but I admire that he has at least voted his conscience on the Patriot bill even when it was politically questionable.
"You're losing the debate where it counts...and within a few short weeks this entire episode will fade into oblivion..."
ReplyDeleteMr. Greenwald's mandate requires that he stoke the fires of BDS out there and turn them into voting support for Mr. Dean and other similar Democrats.
Well, I think he has has done a magnificent job. However, one cannot be a great surfer if there are no waves. So, the best he can do now is wrap the NSA "scandal" carefully and leave it to smoulder until, hopefully, it can be brought out again in order to boil the blood of readers at a critical time. It should be all the better for the festering.
Having Hypatia handle the issue of Gedaliya's professionalism was a hoot. Next goal: get rid of the trolls. I have done my part by ignoring Gedaliya and Bart.
Question for Glen
ReplyDeleteThere is a new looming crisis being created by the Bush admin and I'm wondering if you are interested in writing about it and debating it on your blog.
The crisis is oil. Bush has managed to tick off a large number of the world's oil suppliers by directly antagonizing them and/or invading or threatening to invade them. IE:
Iraq of course by invasion and failure to restore production to even prewar levels.
Venezuela by directly antagonizing them.
Iran, a given due to their stance on several issues but none the less C Rice has asked for an extra 75 million to beam radio broadcasts into the country in hopes of creating a revolution to overhtrow the government.
The UAE by jumping out and signaling approval of the ports deal. (which BTW is 21 ports, not six as has been widely reported.) Now if it isn't approved we risk antagonizing the third largest producer.
And just today, Nigeria, that has asked for military equipment to help put down an insurrection that threatens their oil producing capacity. They claim we are being too slow and have turned to the Chinese for help, inking an oil deal with them in the process. We already know the Chinese are competing with us world wide for resources.
And last but not least the Saudis were attacked the other day. The attack was unsuccessful but will the next or the next be?
On the subject of the administration restarting a Congressionally-defunded program (in this case, TIA), bart can't make up his mind:
ReplyDeletebart, at 7:30:
"In order to fund the renamed program [TIA], the WH would have had to convince Congress to fund the line item for that program... I would hazard a guess that a particular congressional committee defunded the original program for whatever reason so the WH moved the program to another department out of the purview of the hostile committee and had funding approved by another more friendly committee and then the full Congress."
bart, at 8:48:
"The existence of this program [the renamed TIA] was very closely held to the fewest people possible. Of the three witnesses on the panel, it does not surprise me that only one knew the answer to Mr. Wyden's incredibly stupid question. It also doesn't surprise me that Mr. Wyden was brain dead enough to ask about these programs in open session. THIS is exactly why Mr. Bush only briefed the heads of Congress and the heads of the intelligence committees."
So which is it, bart? Did "the full Congress" reauthorize the Congressionally defunded TIA program (under a new name)? Or was TIA (under a new name) restarted by the administration *without* the authorization of "the full Congress," and only the heads of Congress and the heads of the intelligence committees were briefed as such?
This is not a trivial point, bart. It goes to the very heart of your supposed check on the presidential unilateral power to unlimited eavesdropping: Congress's ability to defund a program it finds onerous. But if programs the full Congress defunds can be unilaterally restarted by the administration (as appears to have been done here), without Congress's prior say-so, then your "check" on the president's unilateral power to unlimited eavesdropping amounts to no check whatsoever.
"Do you think just maybe that this program [TIA] was moved and renamed with Congress' full knowledge and support because it is a very useful program?"
If it was so useful, and Congress was so supportive of it, then why did Congress specifically act to defund TIA in 2003?
If Congress had "full knowledge" of this program's existence, then why did Ron Wyden ask if it exists just last month?
Congress had to approve the finding for each iteration of this program [TIA] and seemed to be well aware of each of these iterations when they were leaked.
According to who?! Cite, please.
FRANCIS FUKUYAMA- architect of neoconservativism. "Why don't you invade a lot of countries to spread freedom, and don't worry about how many people you have to kill in the process, and many nations you bankrupt, and definitely don't worry about the loss of freedom on these shores."
ReplyDeleteJOHN YOO--"Yes, you can torture. The more torture the better actually. Don't let nicities stand in your way"
ALBERT GONAZLES--"Yes, you can break the law, spy all you want, and as a matter of fact, you can do anything you feel damn well feel like doing."
VIET DINH ---"Yes, you can introduce fascism into America. 'Matter of fact, good idea! Worked for Hitler!"
Get the pic? Apparently Bush had a hard time finding anyone born in this country to first sanction his more extreme unconstitutional and unamerican programs.
Why did we "outsource" to these authoritarian monsters the job of interpreting our Constitution and writing our foreign affairs policies?
Couldn't he find anyone born and educated here to do those jobs? Hmmmmm, sounds like the port deal....
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeletern, yes, fabulous post.
Glenn is an optimist. You and I are alarmists. Whether alarm makes more sense now than optimism, we'll find out.
In Glenn's defense, I suppose it's only the optimists who change things. Everyone else is so overwhelmed by the enormity of the injustice, they withdraw.
While I appreciate your comments I do not consider myself an alarmist. Pessimistic pragmatist perhaps but alarmist most assuredly no. No offense intended but there is a difference between sounding an alarm and being an alarmist and if you truly feel as I do then labeling me, and yourself for that matter, as alarmist is a convenient way to dismiss our concerns as irrational. Sound very intelligent to you?
I agree that given Glenn's statements and stances on issues he would be considered an optimist but at the risk being unnecessarily argumentative (especially since I believe the following to be a moot point), how are the people going to ever reach the conclusion that our politicians are either criminal or incompetent?
Glenn Greenwald said...
I actually have faith in Americans that if the case is made to them clearly and aggressively that the Administration has seized the power to break the law and that their theories are radical and decisively un-American, they will oppose and be outraged by this much more than they are now. That case just hasn't been made. I believe it will be.
How precisely will this ever happen Glenn? What is the practical way in which this takes place? Is it your contention that the 4th estate is one day going to wake up and say, "You know what? Screw our money men! We are going to report the stories that need reporting! We are once again going to be the people's champion and hold politicians accountable!"
I do not see this happening. I also do not see joe six-pack ever waking up, especially when you have headlines like we had today that read: "Port Sale To Be Put On Hold Pending Further Review"
They will read that headline and perhaps even take a cursory glance at the Republican talking points found there-in and say: "Whew! Glad we got that settled. Time to go to McDonald's."
They will of course not know and not care at that point that the *new* review is a complete sham. That nothing has really changed, etc.
Sorry Glenn, again I do not mean to be unnecessarily argumentative but I just don't see it and while I appreciate your optimism I must also say I find that it flies in the face of our current times and climes.
But perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps the horror is indeed sinking in. Polls might be indicating this. I am simply worn out and have little to no faith in my fellow Americans. After all close to half of them voted for this decadently evil mental midget not once but twice!
Feel no need to respond. I respect your optimism and now I have vented my pessimism.
David shaughnessy...thanks for the response...you've gioven me soem additional things to think about. OGing to get soem dinner (got get some fuel to keep up my strength to fight the tyraanny). Seriously, I'll think about your counterpoints and post any additional thoughts if I think they will add to the discussion.
ReplyDeleteOne immedaite response though on the third-party thing (don't want to go off on it though because this discussion board is on a different topic)
I think to some extent a current proxy for the third party is the challenge from Democrats in their own primaries. Dailykos is flogging for two the Cuellar Texas house seat and Lieberman's CT Senate seat. If their challangers post well, this is the beginning of a message to the Dem leadership. I haven't spent anytime on these races as I live in the heart of wingnut land (GA) but I will watch the results with interest.
Last thought: It will take a lot money to get started, thus somebody(s)with real wealth will need to step up. Soros are you listening? Unfortunately, the message machine will argue that this new party will be beholden to them.
HOo does a grassroots party get formed to change the landscape? I don't have the answer. It's a different world from the early 1900s and the Progressive Party although it's a pretty good choice of name.
I'd prefer a name that harkened to our forefathers and the Constitution to remind people what this party would hold above all else (We are a nation of laws).
I already posted here that I know who gedaliya is, although I don't know who bart is.
ReplyDeleteGedaliya is a female who works for one of the more strident offices of the Bush administration.
She is being paid to interfere with the meaningful and productive debate on this and other blogs which Bushco considers threats.
As one of the lurkers to whom gedalyia is trying to reach, let me just say that if the above quote is true, it wouldn't suprise me. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not college-educated. But even I can smell propaganda when its placed under my nose. I say let her stay. Just keep pointing out the flaws in her logic. It may be tedious, but it would be a valuable service to us lurkers.
'The Progressive Party'? Perhaps. But in some countries, that means extreme right wing and racist.
ReplyDeleteI suggest 'The Constitution Party'.
I don't agree that we dare not impeach Bush unless we can also impeach Cheney.
ReplyDeleteBush cultists come in a variety of flavors: some are fascists, some are religious idolators. Cheney would automatically get the loyalty of the first batch, but not necessarily the second. That works out as a plus for impeaching Bush, regardless of whether we an also impeach Cheney.
Also, Bush is politically dead in the water: only 34% of the country still approves of him. He has at this point no coat-tails, maybe even negative coat-tails. The damage he can continue to do at this point is limited to unilateral action. While that is considerable, it is no different from what Cheney would do. So that works out to a wash in terms of who gets impeached and who doesn't.
And one of the reasons the GOP Congress continues to cover for Bush is to prevent real investigations into the Bush Admin's various crimes. Impeachment hearings could not fail to reveal the reality and extent of those crimes, nor Cheney's culpability in same - nor, for that matter, the GOP leadership's culpability (particularly that of Pat Roberts).
That's a definite plus for impeaching Bush. Even if impeachment hearings only succeeded in articles of impeachment against Bush - indeed, even if an impeachment committee voted out no articles at all - the investigation and hearings would still be reported on by the MSM. That means the whole country would, for once, be informed about the breadth and depth of Bush's, Cheney's, and the GOP's criminality.
There is no way the GOP would benefit from impeachment hearings - esp. if they resulted in a Cheney Presidency. Cheney is widely disliked; even people who still like Bush's persona don't like Cheney's. Since his character and his methodology are not going to change, neither will his utter lack of appeal.
A "President Cheney" means that we'd go into 2007, and into the 2008 election season, with Cheney as the national face of the GOP. That brings up the lovely prospect of every GOP candidate in 2008 - whether Congressional or Presidential - distancing themselves as much as possible from their own President, starting the minute Cheney takes the oath of office.
Finally, impeaching Bush regardless of whether that means a Cheney Presidency would end the Republican tradition of choosing Vice Presidents as "impeachment insurance" (Quayle, Cheney, and whoever is the Veep candidate in 2008.) That's nothing more than a protection racket tactic, and it needs to end.
"As one of the lurkers to whom gedalyia is trying to reach, let me just say that if the above quote is true, it wouldn't suprise me. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not college-educated. But even I can smell propaganda when its placed under my nose. I say let her stay. Just keep pointing out the flaws in her logic. It may be tedious, but it would be a valuable service to us lurkers."
ReplyDeletewhat a waste of time.
run through the logic of that again:
there have been 168 posts on this thread, and a majority of them have involved people responding to two incredibly stupid and repetative trolls, one of whom has been tentatively identified as a paid political operative.
now, an anonymous lurker self-identifies as "not a lawyer or college educated" and requests that for his/her benefit the community continue to waste time?
Could you be more transparent?
If you truly don't understand what's been said so far: it's right there. Reread it, use Google, buy a book.
It's rude and lazy to request that people waste their time for your benefit.
new etiquette:
identify trolls, then ignore.
then ignore anonymous lurkers requesting that people waste even more time.
erg.
"The Progressive Party" would not remotely be a name I'd choose for a third party I likely could support. "Progressive" and some progressives have a long history of identification with Stalinists and Communists. As Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. wrote in the LA Times:
ReplyDeleteThe onset of the Cold War had divided American liberals. Most New Dealers believed that liberalism and communism had nothing in common, either as to means or as to ends, and joined Americans for Democratic Action, a new liberal organization that excluded Communists. On the other hand, the Progressive Party represented the last hurrah of the Popular Front of the 1930s. As the radical journalist I.F. Stone wrote in 1950, "The Communists have been the dominant influence in the Progressive Party. . . . If it had not been for the Communists, there would have been no Progressive Party."
[Henry] Wallace, in a messianic mood, saw himself as the designated savior of the republic. Naively oblivious to the Communist role in his [1948 Progressive Party presidential] campaign, he roundly attacked the Marshall Plan, blamed Truman for Stalin's takeover of Czechoslovakia and predicted that Truman's "bipartisan reactionary war policy" would end with American soldiers "lying in their Arctic suits in the Russian snow." The United States, Wallace said, was heading into fascism: "We recognize Hitlerite methods when we see them in our own land." He became in effect a Soviet apologist.
And there already is a Constitution Party. It makes the Bush GOP look like flaming lefties.
I'm late to this, but...
ReplyDeleteGlenn wrote:
In our country today, having Congress enact legislation is no longer enough for a bill to become an actual, binding law. What is now required as well is that the Administration agree to be bound by the legislation...
Someone please help out a poor educator. What the hell am I supposed to write in a lesson plan about how the laws of this country are created, enforced, and interpreted?
Do we now have some kind of Intelligent Design for Civics™, or what? Can I expect the state standards to be rewritten to include the teaching of "other" theories about our laws? I can see it now: The Center for Civics and Culture - a wholly owned subsidiary of the Discovery Institute.
Sorry - getting fed up and had to vent.
David:
ReplyDelete5. I hope others will take Hypatia's sage advice and ignore Bart and Gedaliya ("Bartaliya") who are White House shills intent, as Hypatia notes, upon disrupting meaningful discourse and retarding concerted action. They are here to waste your time. They recycle the same arguments over and over again, hoping to lure unsuspecting newcomers at this site into clogging up the blog. All of Bartaliya's arguments have been addressed and debunked already, and if anyone needs assurance, I recommend going to the NSA Argument index on the front page of Glenn's blog.
As you well know, I respond once to most of Glenn's blogs and they spend most of my time responding to the legal comments and questions directed at me. I will continue to do so.
If others are drawn to this site to debate me, I am honored. Perhaps they are attracted to the debate which you apparently find a distraction.
Despite your protestations to the contrary, most folks here are uninterested in an actual debate. Rather, they seek an echo chamber where they can hear their own personal anger and pet peeves repeated by others.
Don't feel special. The conservative blogs are mostly the same way.
That is sad.
The internet is the perfect forum for meeting people with different view points from around the world and discussing the issues of the day in a global market place of ideas.
It is a tribute to Glen that he attracts one of the more intelligent followings in the blogosphere. That is why I spend more time than I probably ought to.
To Anon (9:24):
ReplyDelete...I specifically said the benefit has to be in the delta between warrantless eavesdropping and that subject to judicial review. Yes, I know, you can imagine such a scenario, but in the real world how likely are we to see it?
We don’t know the extent of the benefits of this program. Even so, I trust the president is doing the right thing. I voted for him and so did the majority of Americans. I am convinced that most fair-minded people believe his decisions regarding the NSA program are motivated by a sincere desire to protect the nation, not by what some (most?) here believe, i.e., that the program is a mad power grab by a megalomaniac half-wit intent on destroying the United States.
The program details are secret, yet I am willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt regarding its efficacy. Aren’t you?
I'm sorry, but this is in the realm of logical fallacy. There was no terrorist attack on our homeland during the Clinton administration. Does this mean he did a good job fighting Al Qaeda? No, we know he did not; the 9/11 attack was planned on his time.
I chose my words carefully...I said that “one measure” of success is the lack of attacks. We agree that if an attack should occur during the president’s watch, or if one occurs during the watch of his successor, he must bear the responsibility. I know he feels that responsibility more than any other person on this planet, and that is one of the many reasons I trust and admire him.
If the former, tell us, is there a line that the administration could cross (even in the name of fighting terrorism) that would switch your opinion? A line beyond which you'll say, "No! you've gone too far. The benefit isn't worth the cost". If so, what might that line be?
If it was disclosed that the president used the NSA program as a cover to spy on his political opponents (a la Nixon), or for any other self-aggrandizing purpose, I would cease to support the president.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteDan Becker's gentleman's agreement post and Patrick Meighan's post on the ability of the President to evade funding restrictions make important points. In fact, Bush's
ReplyDeletecurrent criminal behavior has a foundation in earlier deplorable, irrational (and incidentally highly detrimental to national security) bipartisan practice - and the Supreme Court's cowardly abdication of its responsibility to defend the Constitution when it is being flatly and extremely clearly broken, by its use of ridiculous "political question" and other figleafs. The Pres has an obligation to present to Congress a full accounting of the
usage of public money (Article I section 9 clause 7). However, regarding the CIA this has been flatly ignored, and the Supreme Court avoided the question when a
congressman sued decades ago. We got through a British invasion, a Civil War and many other ones abiding by this clause, but once we became a superpower, we became a scared elephant, afraid to tell the public where its money was going. The full pernicious effect of such gentleman's agreements to break the Constitution is only now being seen with Bush's depredations - the rot that the Bushies exploit has been around a long time. The only way to cure such problems is for Congress to steadfastly assert the powers it is granted under the Constitution, which make it clearly the most powerful branch of government, more powerful than the other two put together, if it acts with one mind. However, any real degree of self-assertion by Congress does not seem too likely at the moment.
As you well know, I respond once to most of Glenn's blogs and they (sic) spend most of my time responding to the legal comments and questions directed at me. I will continue to do so.
ReplyDeleteIt wouldn't be a problem if you would, just once, acknowledge that you were wrong, or that you have changed your mind, or that you see the logic of the counter argument. But you never have. You're a bot. Likely paid for.
Until you pass the implied Turing Test outlined above, you're a troll.
Caseyl said
ReplyDeleteA "President Cheney" means that we'd go into 2007, and into the 2008 election season, with Cheney as the national face of the GOP. That brings up the lovely prospect of every GOP candidate in 2008 - whether Congressional or Presidential - distancing themselves as much as possible from their own President, starting the minute Cheney takes the oath of office.
First off Cheney is so integrally involved in the illegal ongoings and disingenuous political strategies of this adminsitr4ation that it would be impossible to remain intellectually honest by removing Bush with out Cheney. I would actually argue that Cheney is more impeachable than Bush, but impeaching Cheney alone would have little impact.
I still maintain that any impeachment short of proving an act by the Administration so heinous that it could only be viewed as treason would send the partisanship in this country to a level that would make our government more disfunctional than it already is (if that's possible).
What i found most disturbing in your post is that you looked at impeachment mainly through how it might play out to the advantage of the Democrats. That's very understandable in today's environment so please take this criticism in the constructive manner that it is intended: Any impeachment, and in fact any meaningful actions against the Republican majority need to have the best interests of the country not the party as their primary source. Too many in this country view every political decision as "party before country", even Colin Powell whom I used to like (and still think has a good moral compass, but his loyalties are screwed up).
I'm realistic enough and scared enough by this frontal assault on the OCnstitution by Bush that I see that anything that limits their power is by defintion good for the country, but I hope we find a way to undo their damage without permanently wrecking our fragile democracy.
Patrick:
ReplyDeleteSo which is it, bart? Did "the full Congress" reauthorize the Congressionally defunded TIA program (under a new name)? Or was TIA (under a new name) restarted by the administration *without* the authorization of "the full Congress," and only the heads of Congress and the heads of the intelligence committees were briefed as such?
The intelligence committee performs oversight on the black programs on behalf of Congress.
For obvious reasons, those programs are not individually listed on the final public budget. Rather, a lump sum for a group of programs is approved by the Congress.
In this case, the heads of both houses of Congress and both Intel committees were regularly briefed on this particular program paid for by that lump sum.
Not a single briefed member ever suggested the program was illegal or unwise and requested that it be defunded.
Because the TIA was defunded, obviously congress that the effective power to do so.
However, because a very similar NSA program was created with Congressional knowledge and funding, maybe the defunding of the TIA program war an intentional misdirection by both the Administration and Congress to keep the leftwingnut fringe in the dark while the government goes about the necessary work of defending the country.
This seems likely in my mind because of the 180 the Dems did when the NSA program was blown to the enemy. You folks went ballistic and all the Dems who had been briefed for years on this program were all SHOCKED, SHOCKED to learn there was gambling in Rick's Place...
Time to get a clue about the real world people.
If Congress had "full knowledge" of this program's existence, then why did Ron Wyden ask if it exists just last month?
Let me be clearer. The Intelligence Committees act for Congress concerning these programs.
Idiots like Ron Wyden are not on these committees for obvious reasons like the inability to realize that you don't discuss lack programs in open session of Congress.
Bart: Congress had to approve the finding for each iteration of this program [TIA] and seemed to be well aware of each of these iterations when they were leaked.
According to who?! Cite, please.
I can't speak to Echelon without some further research. However, we know that the heads of congress and the intel committees were briefed about he NSA program and the committees appeared to be well aware of the Able Danger program when they recently held hearings on the Able Danger's discovery of the Atta 9/11 cell and the imminent attack on the Cole. See http://abledangerblog.com/ for more about that.
spark said...
ReplyDeletebart: To the extent that FISA limits or eliminates the President's long recognized Article II constitutional power to gather intelligence against foreign groups and their agents in the United States, FISA has been unconstitutional, and therefore null and void, since its enactment. Mr. Bush could not violate a null and void statute.
Nixon also tried to claim his wiretapping fell under "national security" and therefore his Article II powers because America was at war. He ONLY made the mistake of getting caught...
You are mixing two different sets of surveillance in which the Nixon intelligence agencies were engaged...
Most of the surveillance was legitimate intelligence gathering against foreign governments or groups and their agents. Most of the federal case law which held that this was a Presidential Article II power which did not fall under the 4th Amendment was written concerning Nixon's use of that power.
What you are really referring to was Nixon's illegal use of the CIA and FBI's intelligence gathering apparatus against domestic political opponents like Bobby Kennedy did against MLK and Clinton did by rifling through the FBI files of about 900 Republicans.
As I have posted before, if you find any evidence Mr. Bush is engaging in the same kind of activity, I will join your impeachment bandwagon. This former prosecutor has a very low tolerance for actual high crimes and misdemeanors - as opposed to the imaginary ones.
Hypatia said...
ReplyDelete"The Progressive Party" would not remotely be a name I'd choose for a third party I likely could support.
Speaking of a waste of time...
Hypatia, your arrogance never ceases to astound me. How is it that you have in your mind that liberals would give a bucket of piss for what you, a stunted Libertarian who is still terrified of the Communist bogeyman, think a liberally minded political organization should be named?
It is amazing. How about this - how about you let the liberals debate and decide the name for their political organizations and you worry about your own dead Libertarian movement.
Further when it comes to who you might support or vote for - you are not fooling anyone and constantly attempting to "frame" and move the issue to the right, since that makes you more comfortable and your singular hope is that liberals will wake up to your ideology and choose a Republican-lite candidate, is inanely foolish.
RH spews:
ReplyDeleteHypatia, your arrogance never ceases to astound me. How is it that you have in your mind that liberals would give a bucket of piss for what you, a stunted Libertarian who is still terrified of the Communist bogeyman, think a liberally minded political organization should be named?
This is the left version of Gedaliya. Attack the person -- I am "stunted" or I am "arrogant"-- without addressing the facts he/she actually posted. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. -- a liberal Democrat -- and many other historians have amply documented that "progressive" has historically been a front term for Marxist. That isn't my mere libertarian fixation, it is a fact of history, regardless of whatever adjectives you might apply to me. Deal with it.
I usually spend about 95% of my time when reading a Glenn post, nodding my head in admiration, but I had three issues with this post and only one has been settled in the comments.
ReplyDelete1 This time, the implication that the Specter proposal "may even be quite beneficial in pushing this scandal forward" struck many (zack, sam, ..., and me) as dubious since the administration would almost certainly publicly cave and privately pursue the Yoo doctrine. The Republican Congress gets to look tough and responsible and the White House gets to look tough, accommodating, and responsible.
However, in the comments Glenn states [about GWB obeying the Specter proposal] that "you're absolutely right that even if they do make such a pledge, there is no reason, given the Administration's history, to be confident that they would adhere to it." Is it really necessary to have another example of lawbreaking and duplicity before there is an effective reaction?
Well, maybe in this unfortunately reality-based world, but I hope the GG/FDL coalition produces something better than action "clearly intended to supplant, not supplement, Specter’s prior announced intention to require submission to the FISA court of the question of the program’s legality."
2 Second, in the post Glenn unjustifiably asserts:
"The Administration did not eavesdrop in violation of FISA because it believed that the FISA standards were too restrictive or that the FISA process was too cumbersome."
In the comments, Glenn backs away from this assertion: "While it would not surprise me in the slightest if they were abusing this eavesdropping power (and it would probably surprise me if they weren't), I've never been one who insists that they are abusing it. For one thing, I don't actually know; nobody does."
I don't actually know, but if 5000 people have been subject to some unknown program not reviewed by the FISA Court and if about 10 per year have graduated to warranted surveillance -- well 30/5000 is less than 50% which is the threshold of probable. The administration may well have been reluctant to expose their program because they were unsure of obtaining legislative exemption or judicial approval.
3 As do other posters (owenz, ....), I cannot agree that we will be better if the Specter legislative proposal passes. It erodes the Fourth Amendment. It transfers oversight to the FISA Court, which has similarities to a Star Court in its political invisibility. It should always be a danger sign when the government screens its actions from public view. As this government has amply demonstrated.
Gedaliya said:
ReplyDeleteThe program details are secret, yet I am willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt regarding its efficacy. Aren’t you?
I quit giving Bush the benefit of the doubt a long time ago. IMO he hasn't earned it.
The reason we have separation of powers is so that we are not dependent on trusting the word of one branch regardless of who occupies that branch at any one time.
I'd prefer a name that harkened to our forefathers and the Constitution to remind people what this party would hold above all else (We are a nation of laws).
ReplyDeleteHow about the Founders' Party? Or does that bring "shipwreck" to mind? But directly invoking the Founders would be good: bold radicals with differing opinions for many political questions of the day, but a shared dedication to the rule of laws over men, and a balanced form of government that allows majority expression while protecting against the majority's tyranny. We could quote the Federalist Papers even more than we already have, especially the bit about the consolidation of legislative, executive, and judicial power. I'd like to get legalization of drugs in there somewhere, but Founders' and End the Stupid Drug War Party is really unwieldy, so maybe that could just be in our platform (though not everyone would agree with that, I presume). So, hypatia? Founders' Party, or some refinement thereof? Or we could go with "Death to Stalin." ;-)
--mds
mds writes: I'd like to get legalization of drugs in there somewhere, but Founders' and End the Stupid Drug War Party is really unwieldy, so maybe that could just be in our platform (though not everyone would agree with that, I presume). So, hypatia? Founders' Party, or some refinement thereof? Or we could go with "Death to Stalin." ;-)
ReplyDeleteEr, I think the guy is already dead.
But the thing is, I doubt the wisdom of a third party movement. No such party has been successful for almost 150 years, and I deem it crucial that the Bush populists be removed from power. Whether it is displaced by non-populist Republicans who will respect the rule of law, or by sensible Dems, I don't much care -- altho I think no matter what it would be good if Dems were to take at least one of the House, Senate or Executive, and end the GOP's hegemony.
I could be wrong, and maybe the Internet can generate the first successful 3rd party in almost forever, but it seems quite the gamble.
A few months back, when McCain started to get more vocal about the torture being done in our name by this administration, I thought, 'wow, finally, i can't believe it took this long for someone with enough power to command headlines to take on something that poses such a basic affront to our long-held american values." The MSM started to get interested and Bush and the other deranged freaks in the WH felt the squeeze and, voila, something got done. The legislation ended up coming at a cost, as Lindsey Graham tied it to denying the Guantanamo prisoners access to our courts (which is stunningly wrong,) but at least it would force Bush to stop it.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't believe my ears when I heard the "signing statement" drivel that allowed Bush to keep right on doing what he was doing. Not only because it's so reprehensible, but now the media has convinced Joe Blow that something's been done and the world can go back to sleep on this one. So the torture continues but it will be next to impossible to raise the public awareness again. Worse than before McCain got involved. Thanks a bundle.
I don't mean to be overly pessimistic, but I find myself in the same spot with this Specter proposal. Seems like it should at least force the discussion, but it's easy for me to imagine Rove pulling off another blatant manipulation of the press. Have Bush sign something, after working it a bit for compromise to make it look like you actually intend to obey it, wait for the brouhaha to quiet down and go right back to what you were doing before.
Seem too far-fetched? That doesn't matter anymore. With the broad powers Bush claims, this is something they can do now--sign a law to quell opposition, then ignore it.
This is what makes this such a scandal, regardless of the attempts by the Bushies to claim otherwise. (Bart's a funny guy. Like other shills, he lives in a world of such devotion to his cause he's incapable of thinking Bush is anything less than God's Chosen--benevolent and wise and here to protect bart from A-rabs and commie liberals. What will he do when his Leader is forced to scrub toilets in some federal prison? Ouch!)
And RH makes a good point: what will force this scandal to become seen for what it is--a threat to our system of government? The only answer I can see is for the MSM to be pressured by the blogosphere and people at large to acknowledge it. I might be pessimistic, but that doesn't stop me from trying. I went to Pinkney elementary in Lawrence Kansas in the 60s (and I got several days out of 6th grade due to the riots--yeehaw and go jayhawks,) and am doing my part for the Kansas project.
And it's not just on the internet that you can influence people. Flood the MSM with demands for accountability. Get people you know pissed off enough to do it too. I think this is one of those moments that happens once in a great while--we will either end up at a place where people will say, "damn I'm glad folks woke up in time to catch that, after the scandal blew up in Bush's face we found out how close they came to instituting a police state" or else we'll hear things like, "anybody know what it was like to not have to wear these electronic ankle bracelets?"
I'd never bother to engage gedaliya--you know what you'll get. But i enjoy the glimpse into the world where nothing can come between you and the one you worship. All the power of your mind is brought to bear on the task of maintaining whatever illusion your Fearless Leader commands and you'll bend your argument this way and that as the need arises, not caring whether you're seing the real world or the one you've been told to see. Sad in a way but pretty educational. I always wondered how an otherwise intelligent person can become so enthralled they lose the ability to think for themselves. Now this. I see it in action and I still don't get it. Maybe they hand out enough cash at the WH to make it worth her while. I still would rather know what they're up to than not. If I'm swimming in the ocean and I know there are sharks, I wanna keep 'em in my sight. Post on gedaliya. Is it pronounced like sedalia, or like get-a-life-a? leaf-a?
I figured out what the group of people populating the blogosphere who are banding together to try to save this country from fascism are reminiscent of. Paul Revere. We should call ourselves the Paul Revere Brigade.
ReplyDeleteToday, friends from various cities noticed what I did myself: conservative newspapers who initially came out against the Port deal have been silenced. They have stopped questioning the deal and a strange silence has descended on their editorial pages and lead stories. They too have been muscled.
But the blogosphere marches on. Did John Yoo ever read this poem? Did Viet Dinh? Did Fukuyama? Did Gonzales?
Here's the last stanza:
"So through the night rode Paul Revere;
And so through the night went his cry of alarm
To every Middlesex village and farm,---
A cry of defiance, and not of fear,
A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,
And a word that shall echo for evermore!
For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,
Through all our history, to the last,
In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
The people will waken and listen to hear
The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,
And the midnight message of Paul Revere."
And we, like Paul Revere, must utter in warning that cry of defiance, but this time, that cry is "Awaken. Awaken. The Fascists are coming. The Fascists are here."
gris lobo:
ReplyDeleteEven if it becomes tiresome and tedious you always have the option to ignore the posts made by those you disagree with. Free speech doesn't guarantee that anyone will listen or reply to what you have said. It only guarantees you the right to express your opinion, even if it sounds like a broken record :)
OK. I hear you. You are right. Good advice. I'll whistle and scroll by the trolls from now on. :)
"But the thing is, I doubt the wisdom of a third party movement. No such party has been successful for almost 150 years, and I deem it crucial that the Bush populists be removed from power."
ReplyDeleteMabe it is finally time for a viable third party. Both the Rep's and the Dem's only represent a minority of the population. The majority of voters are registered as Independent.
Bush populists? Sorry but I consider the Bushies anything but populists. I think facists is a lot better description of them, even though screaming will be heard througtout the land over the use of the term, because of memories of Mussolini in WWII.
I don't mean to be overly pessimistic, but I find myself in the same spot with this Specter proposal. Seems like it should at least force the discussion, but it's easy for me to imagine Rove pulling off another blatant manipulation of the press. Have Bush sign something, after working it a bit for compromise to make it look like you actually intend to obey it, wait for the brouhaha to quiet down and go right back to what you were doing before.
ReplyDeleteSeem too far-fetched? That doesn't matter anymore. With the broad powers Bush claims, this is something they can do now--sign a law to quell opposition, then ignore it.
I'm with this guy. If the Bush administration refuses to explicitly acknowledge that its vision on Presidential power is unconstitutional then no legislation that Congress passes that checks Presidential power has the force of law. Until this issue is resolved, Specter's legislation carries more risk of putting Joe Average back to sleep and dampening the calls for investigation of illegal wiretapping to date.
I can't believe we (America) have sunk down to a debate about whether the President has to follow any of the laws Congress passes, what level of governmental torture is permissable, whether opposition in any form is unpatriotic, what level of interference in other country's elections is acceptable, etc (the list is long). This certainly isn;t my America.
To the guy who wants the third party to be pro-drug legalization:
1) just join the libertarian party. You'll fit right in and drive their vote count form .01% to .011%.
That's the problem with these movements, somebody always wants to hijack it for some silly purpose. The issues facing this coutry are way too important for us to stand around debatiing drug legalization, flag burning, gay adoption, etc. Those issues are important, but not when our form of government is under attack. Let's leave them for Day 2 ok, and keep our focus on reestablishing the way our democracy is supposed to work on the big things.
Hypatia, of course it is better to keep things more civil, but you were the first to personalize the issue of naming parties, and frankly it is of not too much interest to others what you would prefer as a name. Your reasoning against "progressive" is pretty silly. The forgotten facts of what Wallace called his party and the rather unusual association with communists then does not prove what Schlesinger and others would certainly not say - that the term is "historically a front term for marxists." Teddy Roosevelt and Bob La Follette were Marxists? That anyone could make such insinuations with a straight face is only an indication of how crazily far to the right "mainstream" political discourse in this country has swung.
ReplyDelete...but you were the first to personalize the issue of naming parties, and frankly it is of not too much interest to others what you would prefer as a name.
ReplyDeleteExcuse me, but it was requested that those of us reading here offer preferred names for a possible 3rd party, and I am under the illusion that my opinion is as valid as anyone else's -- notwithstanding whether you deem it to be uninteresting to others (do you frequently speak for people beside yourself?).
You continue: Your reasoning against "progressive" is pretty silly. The forgotten facts of what Wallace called his party and the rather unusual association with communists then does not prove what Schlesinger and others would certainly not say - that the term is "historically a front term for marxists."
Actually, once you are into the 1930s and beyond, it is beyond reasonable dispute that "progressive" has been a cover for Marxists -- they dominated that party in the 40s, but that is hardly all of it. Many Communists and their front groups identified as Progressives. That would include the traitors and spies, the Rosenbergs.
I'm not a leftist. I'm not a "progressive" if that is in the ballpark of groups who would have an affinity for Marxists, which historically has been the case, and still often is (criticize the Marxist Howard Zinn here and watch the screaming from progressives). Presumably this blog does not require one to identify as a progressive in order to meaningfully participate -- I've seen no indication from its host such a criterion exists.
>...it was requested that those of us reading here offer preferred names for a possible 3rd party...."
ReplyDelete1) Names are nice, but it might be more useful to identify an existing acceptable 3rd party, rather than inventing an identity for a non-existent entity. I think voting Green locally is viable. After working as a clerk in the San Diego Registrar of Voters, I know 1980 SD Libertarians are antidemocratic pond scum, and their philosophy has never been attractive.
2) No party could encompass even the reasoning posters here.
Why not instead worry about armagedinnoutahere's "Have Bush sign something, after working it a bit for compromise to make it look like you actually intend to obey it, wait for the brouhaha to quiet down and go right back to what you were doing before.
Seem too far-fetched? That doesn't matter anymore. With the broad powers Bush claims, this is something they can do now--sign a law to quell opposition, then ignore it.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"I'm with this guy. If the Bush administration refuses to explicitly acknowledge that its vision on Presidential power is unconstitutional then no legislation that Congress passes that checks Presidential power has the force of law."
The first step to solving a problem is to recognize what it is.
It doesn't do any good to pass laws unless someone is willing to enforce them. The real problem IMO is the lack of will to enforce the law already on the books, not the unwillingness to pass new laws. The FISA law was passed in 1978, and the problem is that a Republican controlled congress is unwilling to stand up and enforce it.
Until the congress is willing to look the president in the eye, toe to toe, and tell him that he will obey the law or the Congress will impeach and remove him from office, there will be no resolution of the problem.
Until that point is reached the Congress will remain the ineffectual whipping boys that they have allowed themselves to become by abdicating their responsibilities.
STATED: "Until the congress is willing to look the president in the eye, toe to toe, and tell him that he will obey the law or the Congress will impeach and remove him from office, there will be no resolution of the problem."
ReplyDeleteAGREED: No use passing new legislation. The president doesn't get a mulligan. The fact that he has violated FISA only 5000 times, or he could have obeyed it, but it was onerous. or "Badge, I don't have to show you no stinking badge, senor" is irrelevant.
BUT: This Congress isn't going to impeach.
SO: What can we get out of this Congress, and can we get a Congress that will impeach?
The GG/FDL project is the best step, IMHO.
Bush populists? Sorry but I consider the Bushies anything but populists.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of policy or governance, you're absolutely right. The Bush administration has demonstrated repeatedly that the welfare of the general populace is very low on their list of priorities, assuming that we and our petty concerns register at all. But in political terms, Bush/Rove define populism.
Historically, populism is all about manipulation and bait-and-switch. Focus relentlessly on something most people within your voting range are scared of, something plausible, something that can be reduced to us/them binaries. Deflect opponents by a) shoving them over into themness and/or b) dismissing all non-us/them issues as dangerous distractions.
Of course the original grievance is real -- otherwise it wouldn't be so powerful. But that justified outrage is easily misdirected. Southern populists ranted about the real inequities and cruelties white sharecroppers faced, but they blamed competiton from black sharecroppers. A plausible, easily explained, easily understood answer, and one that eliminated any risk to the system itself.
In those terms, I'd say Bush is the platonic ideal of a populist. Or as close to it as I want to see in my lifetime.
Great news about the 34% approval. I think when the Port deal polls start coming out in earnest, people are going to be surprised.
ReplyDeleteTo the poster who commented that 25% are sometimes bonkers, but what about the other 9%, the answer is that they are whores.
Colin Powell, the man who lied to the UN, got us into this war that has cost what, 20,000 lives so far, and more to come, is on Jay Leno pushing the Port deal. Enuf said.
rH blasted hypatia by writing:
Hypatia, your arrogance never ceases to astound me. How is it that you have in your mind that liberals would give a bucket of piss for what you, a stunted Libertarian who is still terrified of the Communist bogeyman, think a liberally minded political organization should be named?
It is amazing. How about this - how about you let the liberals debate and decide the name for their political organizations and you worry about your own dead Libertarian movement.
Whoa, buddy. I've been spending 16 hours a day this last month trying to contribute to the success of this "third party", or grassroots movement, or whatever you want to call it. Both parties are corrupt and that corruption has enabled our government to become increasingly fascist. The Republicans are the worst, because they are in power, but the Democrats have enabled them every step of the way.
Hillary Clinton was supposed to introduce legislation to block the Port deal. That deal closes on Thursday, three days from now. Just because those listening to the MSM think this 45 day investigation has anything to do with blocking this deal, that doesn't mean it does.
When a business deal closes, it closes. This deal closes on Thursday. Hillary and any other Democrat could have blocked it, but they chose to impersonate Bill Frist and go along, because the vast majority of them are equally corrupt.
It appears that what you want, rh, is really the Democratic party to replace the Republicans, but one that is to the left of the present Democrats, or maybe merely more principled.
If this movement isn't about re-establishing the Rule of Law, upholding the Constitution with emphasis on the separation of the branches, doing away with the notion of an Imperial Presidency, and trying to get principled people of either party into office, then I don't think it will succeed. Putting in divisive party platforms at this point will just separate people. This is a big enough issue, THE RULE OF LAW, to unite people above specific policies. Those policies can be debated and agreed to once we re-establish a government that operates within the law.
But if you think principled Republicans are going to turn into Democrats they're not. Are all libertarians going to turn into Democrats? They're not. There are philosophical, political and pragmatic differences between the two party platforms.
I and my friends would vote for a prinicipled Democrat in a minute, like Russ Feingold, but we are not about to vote in a group of people who want to "soak the rich."
The rich are not the problem in this country. The government is. The MSM is. The corrupt politicians, party machines, lobbyists, advocacy groups, big businesses who pay off government officials to get contracts, etc. And those who would violate the rights and freedom of others.
If progressives want to free up some money, they should work to reduce the spending. Was there some entrenched Democrat who has been crying out that the spending should be reduced? I missed that. For longer than I can recall, Democrats run on a platform of reducing military spending and raising the taxes of the rich. I haven't seen any of them crying about the massive waste of dollars on inept, badly run, pork barrel social programs, or the necessity for most of the programs in the first place.
The long list of "wrongs" higher up in this thread has only ONE item which has two wrongs before it: tax cuts for the rich. That poster reveals that he thinks that was the most egregious thing Bushco did wrong. Amazing.
In case nobody noticed, we have progressive taxation in this country. The top few per cent of earners contribute a huge percentage of the money that is collected in taxes.
I agree that Progressive is not really the right word for this "party", although I considered that myself, because it has a leftist connotation, at least to me. If lefties want to put in progressives, they should work to support progressives in the Democratic primaries.
I actually don't think there is anything "progressive" about wanting to restore this country to its political foundations, to require that politicians operate within the law, and to uphold the Constitution. We started out that way and but we got off course.
This "movement" should be about a group of individuals speaking truth to power, crying out against a lawless "collective", our present corrupt government. That includes Democrats and Republicans.
I haven't noticed too many corrupt Libertarians, btw. Name one, in government.
PS. The communist "bogeyman" is a totalitarian. Fascism is just the flip side of communism. Both represent statist governments.
And I too am afraid, very afraid, of Statism. I prefer a Constitutional Democracy.
I think a third party would be viable if it could get at least a few defections of conscientious legislators from the major parties. If the Democrats aren't willing to call Bush and company what they are - criminals - it seems to me that a third party could make some substantial gains by doing just that.
ReplyDelete"Democrats run on a platform of reducing military spending and raising the taxes of the rich."
ReplyDeleteI'm retired and living on capital gains and I would be overjoyed for Democrats to regain power and retain it for my life. Why, when Democrats tax the rich. Simple. This is from a NYT article.
Which Party in the White House Means Good Times for Investors?
By HAL R. VARIAN
DOES the stock market do better when a Republican is president or when a Democrat is?
The answer is: It's not even close. The stock market does far better under Democrats.
This perhaps surprising finding is examined by two finance professors at the University of California at Los Angeles, Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov, in an article titled "Political Cycles and the Stock Market," published in the October issue of The Journal of Finance.
gedaliya said:
ReplyDelete"We don’t know the extent of the benefits of this program. Even so, I trust the president is doing the right thing. I voted for him and so did the majority of Americans. I am convinced that most fair-minded people believe his decisions regarding the NSA program are motivated by a sincere desire to protect the nation, not by what some (most?) here believe, i.e., that the program is a mad power grab by a megalomaniac half-wit intent on destroying the United States.
The program details are secret, yet I am willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt regarding its efficacy. Aren’t you?"
No.
The Bill of Rights wasn't put into the Constitution as the government's way of granting people rights. It was an affirmation of the idea that rights were natural and inherent for all adult citizens, and as a check on the power of government- in any Presidential administration- to usurp those rights.
You mention that "we don't know the extent of the benefits of this program." Neither do we know the possible extent of the dangers and abuses.
"Trust us" does not amount to a persuasive argument, when it comes to actions that amount to ceding basic liberties to governmental power.
Personally, I'm most concerned about the abuse of such surveillance powers to monitor and retaliate against government, police, intelligence, and military whistleblowers, both retired and active. There's been an unprecedented wave of retirements and resignations among those personnel under the Bush administration, and I wonder what the results would be, were they to manage to get their stories together.
Here are some of the stories we've managed to get together already. An incomplete list, but comprehensive enough to provide a general guide.
What reasons have George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld given me to trust them? They fear-monger. They bait and switch. They lie, and then lie about having lied. They habitually conceal their doings from public scrutiny. They typically insist on public appearances either before audiences pre-screened for unanimous loyalty, or duty-bound to provide the image of unanimous support, as with military assemblies.
And consider what the state of American civil liberties would look like if the Bush regime had simply gotten ever power it's demanded, unchallenged. Dirty War-era military rule in Argentina comes to mind as a cogent precedent.
Somehow we faced down two nuclear-armed adversaries during the Cold War without granting the president a blank slate of autocratic power to wield in the name of national security. Why should we agree to cede such power now, simply because one September morning a handful of hijackers managed to commandeer and ram a few jetliners into buildings by defeating a virtually undefended perimeter of non-existent sky marshals, unbarricaded pilot cabins, easily defeatable location devices, and easily manipulable flight programs? It's a non sequitur.
By all accounts, those specific vulnerabilities haven't even been adequately addressed, 4 1/2 years on. From the link I included above:
"...Our country's safety has been neglected, according to the Sept. 11 Commission, which issued failing grades to the government's response to its recommendations. In 2004, undercover teams slipped weapons past security barriers in 15 U.S. airports. [USA Today, Sept. 23, 2004]
In 2005, a mock attack in Boston revealed complete disarray among the terror response units. [AP, Dec. 27, 2005]..."
Considering that hijacking a jetliner is the ONLY way that a terrorist adversary can manage to commandeer a weapon with anything approaching the mobility, explosive power, and tight targetability of a cruise missile, I have to wonder about the security priorities of this administration.
Meanwhile, hysterics are still out in full force attempting to bum-rush the American public into jettisoning their electronic privacy, their freedoms to assemble peacably to protest government policies, and whatever might be left over from the manifestly ineffectual Drug War's historic devouring of the 4th Amendment.
What's this all about, really?
Toll in Iraq's Deadly Surge: 1,300
ReplyDeleteMorgue Count Eclipses Other Tallies Since Shrine Attack
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, February 28, 2006; A01
BAGHDAD, Feb. 27 -- Grisly attacks and other sectarian violence unleashed by last week's bombing of a Shiite Muslim shrine have killed more than 1,300 Iraqis, making the past few days the deadliest of the war outside of major U.S. offensives, according to Baghdad's main morgue. The toll was more than three times higher than the figure previously reported by the U.S. military and the news media.
Hundreds of unclaimed dead lay at the morgue at midday Monday -- blood-caked men who had been shot, knifed, garroted or apparently suffocated by the plastic bags still over their heads. Many of the bodies were sprawled with their hands still bound -- and many of them had wound up at the morgue after what their families said was their abduction by the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr....
Aides to Sadr denied the allegations, calling them part of a smear campaign by unspecified political rivals...
The majority of the dead had been killed after being taken away by armed men, police said....
The bulk of the previously known deaths were caused by bombings and other large-scale attacks. But the scene at the morgue and accounts related by relatives indicated that most of the bloodletting came at the hands of self-styled executioners.
In the Shiite holy city of Najaf, aides to Sadr denied any role in the killings....
"These groups wore black clothes like the Mahdi Army to make the people say that the Shiites kidnapped and killed them," said Riyadh al-Nouri, a close aide to Sadr....
Sahib al-Amiri, another close aide, said: "Some political party accused [Sadr's political party] and the Mahdi Army because they considered us as competitive to them. So they recruited criminals to kill Shiites and Sunnis."
This is heartbreaking. Does anyone else smell a rat here?
The kind of rat who would make a person stand for eighteen hours holding a 50 pound concrete block?
Glenn, you Sir, are a major asset to the country as a blogger. I don't know how we got along before your arrived in this public arena, but we sure do need your continued efforts.
ReplyDeleteTruly outstanding, patriotic work!
Anon said...
ReplyDeleteIt appears that what you want, rh, is really the Democratic party to replace the Republicans, but one that is to the left of the present Democrats, or maybe merely more principled.
My post really had nothing to do with what I "want." Regardless, I can hardly see how you arrive at your assumptions about what I "want" from my taking Hypatia to task. I took her to task for a very specific reason and I believe that any liberal who reads this blog and its comments section daily might understand my reasoning from reading my post and knowing her past posts.
Regardless this is not about Hypatia (no matter how much she would like that to be the case). This is about liberals not allowing cons of all shapes and sizes to continue to push the ideological line and discussion to a place where, before we know it (and perhaps we have already reached this place), we are choosing from right and extreme right instead of right, left and ideologies in-between.
Should we let the cons define the debate and frame the issues? Are we to allow them define the "name" of a potential new third party before it even becomes a reality? I couldn't care less what cons consider the definition of "progressive" to be and, if I might be so bold, neither should you. Need we go through the history of the various political parties and their shifting ideologies and positions throughout our nations history? I don't think so. It is a meaningless exercise at this point but one folks like Hypatia conveniently omit when they attempt to raise the progressive - Marxist link. The term Progressive can mean whatever the people that choose it want it to mean - that is, unless we let people like Hypatia define it for us.
PS. Thanks for the lesson in left vs. right totalitarianism. Your condescension is duly noted.
Turing Test said...
ReplyDeleteSTATED: "Until the congress is willing to look the president in the eye, toe to toe, and tell him that he will obey the law or the Congress will impeach and remove him from office, there will be no resolution of the problem."
"BUT: This Congress isn't going to impeach.
SO: What can we get out of this Congress,"
I think that all that we will get out of this congress is some nibbling around the edges, if even that much. As Arlen Specter's legislation shows IMO. Just enough to assuage the majority of the public so that they can keep their jobs.
"and can we get a Congress that will impeach?"
I'm honestly not sure if we can get a congress that will impeach. I do believe that we will get some change though in November. I think the congress has underestimated the depth of voter anger. As is evidenced by Bush's poll numbers that have not risen above the 45 mark in a long time politically. If nothing else if either the Senate or the House can be taken by the Dems it will at least put a halt to the Bush agenda. He will become a true lame duck which personally I believe is the best thing for the country short of impeachment.
The Democrats IMO need not only keep pinging on Bush's failures though, they need to make a concerted effort to associate those failures with the Republican party and the incumbents in office that have rubber stamped his agenda for five years.
They need to engage in what the Republicans will call the politics of personal destruction, mudslinging , which I call highlighting his record.
All the way from his freeze up and disappearance on 9/11 to his failure to secure our borders and ports.
Anyway I'm sure you get the drift. The Dems need to quit being nice guys. They need to stand up and go toe to toe with the Republicans.
If they wimp out again, or try to continue to be Repulican lights they may pick up a few seats, but not enough to effect any change.
There's something really interesting happening with this whole sudden explosion of Lou Dobbs onto the political scene.
ReplyDeleteGo over to Huffington Post and read the comments on the "Shut up Lou Dobbs" post and you'll see what I mean.
I honestly think that if Lou Dobbs ran for President tommorow on a third party ticket, he'd win.
More immediately, if he could be enlisted, now that he has attracted and energized a fiery base of excited, bi-partisan fans, in the effort to explain to the public the real facts behind the whole NSA spying issue, and the broader assault on the Rule of Law by Bushco and "its" lawyers, the public would awaken and pay attention.
It wouldn't have two weeks ago, but now that Lou Dobbs has become everyone's hero, when he speaks people are going to view it that he's speaking for them, not the government and the media bosses.
And that's what they've been waiting for.
One reason this has happened so quickly is that 70% of the public are against the Port deal, and most of them are against it passionately.
Lou is the only person in the media who has made it his cause to try to defeat this Port deal. When he speaks, his followers feel he is speaking up for them, and that makes them devoted to him.
Secondly, Lou Dobbs is a big departure from what people have become used to seeing on TV. He is exactly what the Senate Judiciary Committee was not, in its questioning of Alito and Gonzales.
He's intelligent, focused, informed, and passionate. When he asks a question and gets an answer, he knows the right follow up question. He knows the facts. He doesn't cave, or make nice. He turns up the volume as he goes along, bringing his audience along with him.
And the way in which he slices through all the transparent propaganda like a knife through butter is nothing short of amazing.
In one week, this man has become a hero. It shows the power of an idea whose time has come, and the impact of a person who really says something, has a viewpoint, forcefully defends his position, and refuses to back down or kiss anyone's tush.
A few comments were particularly interesting. One person wrote
"they haven't even taken over the Ports yet and they are already trying to blackmail our press."
Another wrote "They must think they can control our press they way they control their own press over there."
And those are good points. If in their first display of how they do business they act like bullies who try to stifle debate and shut up the opposition, what does that say about the way they operate, the way they do business?
I do think that what unites people more than any single thing at this point is a desire to see a principled, trustworthy, passionate person on the right side of an issue speak truth to power. That's as rare as an orchid.
Lou Dobbs is a symbol of what can go right with America now, with a little luck.
vetiver said...
ReplyDelete"In those terms, I'd say Bush is the platonic ideal of a populist. Or as close to it as I want to see in my lifetime."
In those terms I would agree with you. I do still think that fascist is a closer fit in real terms though.
Fascism is also typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic. The fascist state regulates and controls (as opposed to nationalizing) the means of production. Fascism exalts the nation, state, or race as superior to the individuals, institutions, or groups composing it. Fascism uses explicit populist rhetoric; calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness; and demands loyalty to a single leader, often to the point of a cult of personality.
The only thing that some would take issue with is the controlling and regulating the means of production but even that can be argued from the standpoint of Bush continuing to move jobs overseas to low wage areas, controlling by only allowing certain industries to survive in this economy while engaging in protectionism for the ones that are favored.
And if you'll notice fascism uses populist rhetoric. :)
Anonymous said:
ReplyDelete"I and my friends would vote for a prinicipled Democrat in a minute, like Russ Feingold, but we are not about to vote in a group of people who want to "soak the rich."
The rich are not the problem in this country. The government is. The MSM is. The corrupt politicians, party machines, lobbyists, advocacy groups, big businesses who pay off government officials to get contracts, etc. And those who would violate the rights and freedom of others."
I agree with the majority of your post. Were it in my power though there is one change that I would make in the way that things are presently done.
The rich could keep their tax break but it would be targeted. The break would go to those that directly create jobs in this country. One of the problems I have is that is not the way it is now.
gris lobo:
ReplyDeleteIf a President succeeds in pushing through a controversial deal that is vigorously opposed by 70% of the public, and 58% of Republicans, most of who have made their anger known to their representives, is he really a
"lame duck"?
About that first supposed limit on the president's wartime powers
ReplyDeleteHere's the thing, the Constitution doesn't grant the Executive/President any special "wartime powers". President Bush and the media repeating "the President's constitutional wartime powers/authority" doesn't make it so. The Consitution Article 2 deals with the Executive powers, and nothing about "war powers" is to be found there, or anywhere else in the Constitution.
Perhaps instead of asking "what will congress do?" and supporting more laws that will be ignored, people would be better off if they realized that if the government refuses to follow its own laws, and adhere to the powers granted them in the constitution, then the government is itself illegitimate, and has no authority anymore.
Hypatia, that Marxists have used the word "progressive" since the beginning of Marxism is beyond dispute. Marxists, and other people too, have used lots of words at times. "Progressive" has been used by many, many people at all ends of the spectrum, generally with positive connotations. Who is against progress? The non sequitur that the word thus calls to mind Marxism (in the view of anyone not a extremist, or even the average Marxist) is very strange. In modern american discourse it is probably weaker than "liberal."
ReplyDeleteThe grey wolf writes:
ReplyDeleteThe reason we have separation of powers is so that we are not dependent on trusting the word of one branch regardless of who occupies that branch at any one time.
Yes, each branch "checks" and "balances" the other branch, but keep in mind that the checking and balancing goes both ways. It isn't just the legislature that checks the executive; the opposite is also true. And when the legislative branch crosses the line in regard to the president's plenary power to manage our national security, the executive is bound by his oath of office to "check and balance" it accordingly.
The founders didn't trust legislatures as much as they didn't trust executives with unchecked power. They especially didn't trust unelected judges to make public policy. Let's not forget the checking and balancing is distributed among all branches (roughly) equally.
Anon: you ask who could be against "progress?" Me, if it is much of the progress that the Progressive Movement(s) has historically inflicted on us. As James H. Timberlake demonstrated in his book Prohibition and the Progressive Movement: 1900-1920, these do-gooders think putting smart people who care enough in charge of other people's lives is the way to go, and they use govt and coercion to bend the masses to their will.
ReplyDeleteAs one of those dastardly libertarians at the Cato Inst. has written: In the aftermath of Prohibition, economist Ludwig von Mises wrote, "Once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments."[58] The repeal of all prohibition of voluntary exchange is as important to the restoration of liberty now as its enactment was to the cause of big government in the Progressive Era.
I might sign up for the Don't Tread on Me Party. But neither the progressive social engineers nor those who were Marxists (totalitarians) are my cup of tea. That descriptor has so many odious implications I cannot imagine myself ever cottoning to it. (And yes, I realize that in our era many self-described progressives oppose drug prohibition. But they generally favor big govt in other areas.)
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"If a President succeeds in pushing through a controversial deal that is vigorously opposed by 70% of the public, and 58% of Republicans, most of who have made their anger known to their representives, is he really a
"lame duck"?
I have made no claim that he is a lame duck. I said that I would like for him to become one.
The ports deal is not a test of whether he is a lame duck. A lame duck is a President that cannot get legislation that he favors passed. The ports deal does not deal with anything legislated by the Congress at his request. In fact he excluded Congressional debate in approving it as he has on other issues such as the NSA spying. For it to fail the Congress would have to pass legislation directly opposing what Bush has presented to them as a fait accompli. Whether that would happen remains to be seen, but it's something that I personally doubt will happen for reasons that would take a long explanation. The short of it being about oil.
Gedaliya said:
ReplyDeleteYes, each branch "checks" and "balances" the other branch, but keep in mind that the checking and balancing goes both ways. It isn't just the legislature that checks the executive; the opposite is also true. And when the legislative branch crosses the line in regard to the president's plenary power to manage our national security, the executive is bound by his oath of office to "check and balance" it accordingly.
Of course the checks and balances are for all three branches which is why it is so disturbing when one branch excludes the other two as in the unchecked NSA spying done in secret by the Bush admin.