So as I suggested on Friday – Kennedy is going to take an interesting, unexpected approach in Monday's wiretapping hearings.
First of all, again as we discussed - all Dems on the panel are going to emphasize that they take a back seat to no one when it comes to national security, and they arent going to fall into Karl Rove’s trap that asking questions about a questionably illegal program is similar to handing the terrorists our playbook.
But Kennedy will take that further by questioning Gonzales about the effectiveness of the program from the national security standpoint, believing that this rogue program is harmful because by ignoring around FISA it 1) our national security is actually weakened when the country is divided – and we aren’t protecting those intelligence officials who are working to protect us (if the President’s legal analysis is wrong – these people could go to jail for breaking the law) and 2) raises the risk that terrorist go free - given that the evidence is tainted because it isnt sanctioned by law.
In addition, Kennedy will underscore how willing Congress was/is to give the President the tools he needed, and question Gonzales why they parted with history in deciding to circumvent the time honored (and Constitutionally required) system of checks and balances. He will strongly contend that Congress is willing to work with this administration.
There are documents from the Ford Library detailing Kennedy’s unique role, as the principle author of FISA – including 1) Kennedy’s statement how well the Administration was working with them, including Antonin Scalia who was Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel from 1974-1973 2) how Attorney General Levi supported the law and 3) how important it was for the Adminstration to have Kennedy’s backing. In contrast to this Administration’s lack of trust in Congress – the Republican Administration under Ford actually came to Kennedy and asked him to take the lead on introducing FISA.
Also, as you saw today on MTP, Specter said that nothing in the AUMF mentions electronic surveillance – exactly what resolution offered by Kennedy and Leahy says, S. Res. 350....
I hope you can get people to see that working outside of the system in fact harms our national security. Let me know what you think. And again, thanks for coming over on Friday.
I agree that this is an "unexpected" approach. And the DoJ itself made exactly this point in 2002 when it explained why it opposed the DeWine Amendment - saying that eavesdropping without probable cause would harm national security by jeopardizing prosecutions of terrorists by allowing them to argue that the prosecution is tained by unconstitutional means of obtaining evidence.
I'll reserve judgment otherwise until I see this questioning in action and, more importantly, how it's coordinated (if it is) with questioning by the other members.
It's an interesting choice, depending on how the other Senators attack. But ultimately, I doubt it will work. The issue is that el Presidente broke the law. He could have done all the wiretaping he wanted within the framework of the law, but didn't. And then he lied about it.
ReplyDeleteI think they should stick to that, but I'm willing to give Teddie the benefit of the doubt. He earned it with Alito.
Kennedy's approach is the one laid out on the Huffington Post a few days ago. The thinking is that politically, it's hard to win on the warrentless eavesdropping issue because the country is so strongly anti-terrorist and not able to follow the nuances of the laws at issue, so instead, the emphasis should be on how unnecessary, and even ineffective, the domestic spying actually is, leaving real terrorists at large while Americans get snooped on.
ReplyDeleteThe point isn't that working outside the system hurts our national security. The point is that spying on people without a warrant is a violation of our sovereignty. The people have not ceded to the government the power to spy on us without a warrant. To miss this point us to fail fundamentally to understand our democracy: the bush administration has overstepped its bounds and must be dealt with severely. The last thing I want to hear from Senator Kennedy is 'Hey, why didn't you just ask us? You want more power? We'll work with you guys.' The power isn't Senator Kennedy's to give.
ReplyDeleteSo, uh, I'm against it.
I understand Kennedy's idea - but I think the "fruit of the poisonous tree" is too esoteric of a concept for the public to get behind. Not that I don't appreciate it - and agree with it. I think the point deserves to be made, but I don't think it will carry the day from a PR perspective, which unfortunately is a factor policians have to deal with. I think first they need to establish that (a) this is not an issue between those that are tough on terror and those that would give terrorists a free pass, (b) that the administration's attempt to define it as such is self-serving and deceptive, (c) FISA is *not* outdated as it pertains to the issue (in terms of technology or the threat) and (d) that the threat in question is not beyond the scope of what was anticipated by the statute -- or the fourth amendment. I am SO tired of hearing about the "post-9/11 world" as being something that granted the government a clean slate to write whatever rules they want to fit the situation . . . I feel for all those who were lost in that horrible attack. But to suggest that it is comparable to WWII as Rumsfeld does . . . the mind reels at the hubris that allows someone to fearmonger in this way.
ReplyDeleteMake these points - show that the statute is applicable -- and then that they violated it -- and THEN the consequences - i.e., the fruit of the poisonous tree.
i have a concern about the NSA's warrantless wire taps that i have not heard voiced.
ReplyDeleteif we can imagine the massive downloading from the telcoms' switch gear and the data mining this makes possible, then two threats that are possible if not probable, are
1)(this one i have seen mentioned) a kind of marketing espionage used to enable economic/investment advantage for bu$h.co's friends and
2) data mining for advantaging GOTV efforts and targeting the opposition by using this marketing analysis in political campaigns against us.
here we may suspect that more information yields more accurate information yields finer focus of their message bombs against us.
of course, legal warrants are impossible for either 1) or 2).
but since we were only looking for terrorists, everything is okay.
I'd kind of like to know how they are defining "terrorists" for purposes of who they choose to spy upon -
ReplyDeleteIt's an ok approach, but a bit esoteric.
I guess part of me just wants to have them say:
1) If there is nothing wrong with ignoring the 4th Amendment warrant requirement, why did you and the WHitehouse repeatedly tell people that all wiretapping was being done WITH warrants?
2) Innocent investigations have nothing to fear from Court Review - why are you so fearful of Court Review?
3) National security never becomes an issue and no details on programs are needed in a public forum if you simply agree to have all programs subject to FISA court review.
4) The ONLY reason the discussion is occuring is because the Administration says it is above the law and not subject to court review.
5) The Administration does not need Congressional review if it agrees to be bound by the Constitution and have the Judicial reveiw required by the Constitution.
I think some or all of those are easier and more direct and more defusing of the "national security" arguments.
NO OPEN DISCUSSION is needed for progams if you just follow the law and make sure there is judicial review (even secret judicial review) of those programs.
ok - last item - is it still a prosecutor's trick or has it become too hokey
Pass a copy of the Constitution
to AG Gonzales and ask him to circle the part that says the Bill of RIghts are suspended when America goes to war.
Maybe as a follow up ask him ---- do we want to spread a version of democracy that says, no matter what a Country's Constitution says - none of its citizens have a right to the protections of their Constitution as long as there is a worldwide war on terror?
Wouldn't that mean the same thing as saying - the terrorists won?
Just
Gosh, a veritable lie detector.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link, Dell:
"[M]achines can easily determine the sex, approximate age and social class of a speaker. They are also learning to look for clues to deceptive intent in the words and "paralinguistic" features of a conversation, such as pitch, tone, cadence and latency."
--nbm
This post makes me feel very uneasy. I can't imagine that posting a note from Kennedy's staff about their planned questioning is helpful. Don't you or they care whether the AG's minions know their strategy in advance? (I'm sure the Republicans, not to mention FNC read blogs too.)
ReplyDeleteWhile you have clearly done some good work on this issue, lately your posts seem to be more about promoting your influence in Washington and being skeptical about the work of people in the Senate than about working together for a common goal against a very powerful and ruthless foe. I think it would have been much better if you had offered your expert advice to the Senate privately, rather than documenting it and commenting along the way.
Finally, I feel you have been very disrespectful of the work of a number of Senators on that Committee. Someone on another blog, linking to you, said that no one on that Committee has been sticking up for the Constitution. That is a ridiculous exaggeration. Maybe they aren't perfect, but it's clear they care. Why don't we see how it goes at the hearing before writing the MSM's spin that the Democrats blew it again in advance?
I feel our playbook is probably well known. I am of course refering to the constitution. Where is the shining city on the hill I used to be so proud of? Reviled by most nations, in secret or publicly as imperialists, who zealousy export and impose their will at the point of a gun. My hope is they can reign in this outlaw behavior and restore this constitutional bypass. Further, bring some sanity back to our foreign policy.
ReplyDeleteI hope Joe Biden wears a cute hat. He really is a sweet guy. Funny, too.
ReplyDeleteBut the fact that my civil rights are in his hands is not so encouraging.
They need to shut down the "Congress was briefed and no one complained" bullshit.
Sessions was all over it today.
The idea that eavesdropping without probable cause would harm national security by jeopardizing prosecutions of terrorists by allowing them to argue that the prosecution is tained by unconstitutional means of obtaining evidence presupposes the idea the administration believes people caught by these means will be tried in the first place. If they are never brought to trial to bring up their fourth amendment rights what has the administration lost? Talk with Professor Yoo. He can explain why neither fourth amendment rights nor a fair trial nor to confront your accuser in court are necessary or required. Once you understand that then this whole thing makes sense. Now lets just hope the little king does not declare martial law and do away with elections.
ReplyDelete"2) Innocent investigations have nothing to fear from Court Review - why are you so fearful of Court Review?"
ReplyDeleteI like this because it shifts the questioner onto the offensive. Politically, this is what Dems need to do. Asserting their devotion to national security in se only invites ridicule.
Noting that the North Koreans had precisely *no* nukes in 2001 and are generally agreed to have several today, and asking how that makes the world a better place, is better politics on national security. It's old-fashioned, and it works. You have to point to flaws and inconsistencies and pin blame where it belongs. Forget the nuance.
But the committee hearing isn't the place for much of that-- just enough to cause sparks and attract coverage.
The public part of the hearings is to get Gonzo and the others on the record and put them in the weakest political position. So part of this proposed strategy makes some sense.
I just don't like the junior-high whining implied in "we do too care about national security." The only stance that effectively communicates it is outrage at what the admin has done that weakens our security.
Altoid
What about Feingold's statement that Gonzales lied about wiretapping during his own confirmation hearings? He knew of the wiretapping as Bush's lawyer and feigned ignorance and inability to answer a hypothetical question.This was under oath.It is an inportant point to bring that questions Gonzales's credibility.
ReplyDelete"I am not a crook"
ReplyDeleteequates to
"No one here believes we shouldn't spy on Al Qaeda"
___________________________________
So don't get trapped into saying "I am not a wife beater." Which means keep the words "...shouldn't spy on Al Qaeda..." out of your language, period.
Say, instead:
GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT.
Accountability can only enhance the end result and promote competence, while exposing incompetence to disinfecting sunshine. An "enhanced end result" means GOOD Intelligence for the country's defenders to act on. BAD Intelligence is probably worse than NO intelligence, with regard to keeping us "safe." Get some EXPERTS up there to explain to the country what works and what doesn't.
Which ties into the fact that we are NOT speaking of "wire taps" in actuality. This is SIGNALS INTELLIGENCE data mining: of massive amounts of data "garbage" that must be culled, like looking for a needle in a haystack, for anything of value.
"Best Practices" must be adopted, and without FULL understanding and accountability and oversight of the components and processes involved, by those in the Legislature who fund and "check" the Executive Branch, incompetence, inefficiency, and loopholes will be rife and left to multiple in ANY classified program kept out of the public eye.
How many backlogs of untranslated intercepts are already waiting for unavailable translators to tackle, at the FBI? How many of these new NSA intercepts are of English speakers and English language data, and how many translators have they added to their staff or has the FBI added, to handle these massive new "terrorist" data intercepts? If the new intercepts are mostly in English, how do they square that fact with the non-English native tongues of the main "terrorist" suspects in the world? Get as detailed as possible, to pin down the process and the thinking.
This, of course, is IN ADDITION to the fundamental liberty and Constitutional issues which must take center stage. But ANY further loosening of FISA demands a careful cost/benefit analysis, something that obviously the leadership of the FBI for one, based on its recent history, is woefully unprepared to perform.
Where exactly is the preview from Kennedy's office?
ReplyDeleteI see your musings but nothing from Kennedy himself.
My post at DU:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=331841&mesg_id=331841
Thank you for all you are doing, Mr. Greenwald.
I understand the concerns of many of the commentors above that Senator Kennedy's line of questioning somewhat obscures the fact that the real problem is that the President broke the law. However, I think that Kennedy's strategy is a good one because part of the Administration's justification is that the law was outdated and did not provide them the flexibility that they needed. Kennedy is then highlighting that the Admin decided on their own to bypass Congress. Very little emphasis has been made in most discussions (excluding those here in the blogosphere) that the Admin's policy actually could put us more at risk because prosecutions based on evidence obtained through this program may be overturned. If this point can be made in an easily understood fashion, I think that it might help to show the Admin as being reckless, thereby putting the country at risk, while in contrast show that the Democrats are actually stronger on defense by questioning the legality of the program before too many "terrorists" are set free due to the use of illegal evidence.
ReplyDeleteBut this strategy should be used in coordination with other Senators focusing on the legality of the program. If the Democrats on the committee could coordinate their questioning such that each is getting at a different point of weakness in the Bush Admin's story, the hearings could end up providing a stronger and more comprehensive critique of the program overall.
But it would be best if they left the most important questions for the Senators who are the most effective questioners (e.g., Feingold and Kennedy).
-tlb
anonymous second-to-last -
ReplyDeleteThe inset text in Glenn's post is written by a Kennedy staffer - that's the preview under discussion.
In re-reading the preview, I just want to say that the strongest, most compelling arguments for me are in the paragraph about working around FISA -- who can dispute that their pseudo-legal approach puts the federal employees and DoD/NSA servicemembers in potential legal jeopardy, and also jeopardizes any future cases based on such evidence? The Judicial Branch is going to get a say in the matter, either sooner or later, so it might as well be sooner, via the FISA Court that was put in place for just this reason...
And I should add that in addition to the needed Legislative "checks" on such a program, the whole point of FISA is to give the Judicial Branch a clearcut "check" on the Executive, in complete secrecy so as to enhance "catching the bad guys." So if you wanted to stay "undercover," NSA, all you had to do was FOLLOW THE LAW, and obey the secret FISA Court's procedures.
I think Sen Spectre's own argument that the President should have asked the FISA Court for recommendations, is very interesting. But I still think that Article I Section 8 Paragraph 16, which lays out that Congress is charged with establishing the "Rules and Regulations for the land and sea forces" trumps all Article II "Command In Chief" arguements. Congress establishes the rules, the President is supposed to executes his responsibilities to protect the nation by working within the rules.
ReplyDeleteWhen President Clinton attempted to remove the gay/lesbian ban from the Military, Bob Dole beat him soundly about the head and shoulders with Article I, Section 8 and threated to have Congress removed the Presidents authority to remove the ban.
If Clinton couldn't do that back then, why can Bush do what he's doing now?
Vyan
The senators should ask A.G. "Did my international calls get monitored?" (assuming that the tapping would at least screen out capital hill calls, may need to be prefaced with from home)
ReplyDeleteA.G.'s possible responses would be
1. 'yes' - of course he won't say this
2. 'i can't comment on that' - if he replies this, then everyone will assume yes
3. 'no' - would he lie under oath again?
4. 'i don't know' - indicates program is out of control, with no bounds, as in how could a u.s. senator get caught up in the warentless wiretapping!?! and the ramifications on us 'mythical' little guys :-)
Having read all the comments, I am suddenly very nervous that the Kennedy approach is likely to lead to disaster, and is a possible set-up. The probable result of the hearings will just be that, having merely established that the broad spying that the administration is doing would have been okay had there been warrents, the uproar will be "resolved" by Congress just broadening the FISA language to allow the adminsitration to continue to spy on us. I have thus changed my mind about this whole matter, and think the main issue pursued should be that these horrific Big Brother practices which so invade our privacy and threaten our civil liberties in the bogus name of WOT are an outrage, and should be stopped at once. Of all the strategic advice offered, I think anon's post at 7.33 is the best one, and the one most likely to provide fodder for investigation and follow up, no matter how AG responds.
ReplyDeleteFor the few people who have suggested - both here and by e-mail -- that there is something wrong or harmful about my posting the note from Kennedy's staff:
ReplyDeleteThese are political professionals who sent this to me and then consented to my posting it here. They're not stupid. They obviously wanted me to post it or they wouldn't have sent it to me and then consented to its publication. In fact, my only reluctance in posting it was that it felt a little like a glorified press release disguised as a personal "preview" and I didn't want to be used as some Press Release vehicle. But it had enough worthwhile information to justify posting it.
As for the posts about what I've been doing in Washington - I'm not here trying to be some inside political operative. I'm here as a blogger and a citizen trying to achieve some positive things based on the work that not only I but the people who read my blog have been doing, along with others in the blogosphere, and I'm obviously going to post about what I've been doing, seeing, hearing and learning because that's the whole point of my being here - to be part of the effort to increase the impact and influence which the blogosphere has on actual events in DC and the media.
I strongly agree with this approach. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree is a catchy phrase. A soundbite on its own. Clearly, it is not difficult to define; i.e. evidence obtained in an illegal search is inadmissible against a defendant (terrorists). This is the long-term, huge harm this program may do. And the lawsuits are already beginning using this argument.
ReplyDeleteGlenn writes:
ReplyDeleteThese are political professionals who sent this to me and then consented to my posting it here. They're not stupid. They obviously wanted me to post it or they wouldn't have sent it to me and then consented to its publication. In fact, my only reluctance in posting it was that it felt a little like a glorified press release disguised as a personal "preview" and I didn't want to be used as some Press Release vehicle. But it had enough worthwhile information to justify posting it.
And you are the least thing from stupid as well. My assumption, which I'm sure is accurate, is that everything you post is intended to be informative for your readers, but may also serve the purpose of -- or at least would not detract from -- communicating to various political actors that which it would be helpful to have communicated.
These are political professionals who sent this to me and then consented to my posting it here. They're not stupid.
ReplyDeleteGiven the Dems' performance as an opposition party, that is debatable. Just look at the Alito debacle.
Always willing to be pleasantly surprised. I just remember the repeated broadcasting of their 02 election strategy as it evolved, and the Republicans laughing at their amateurishness.
ok - last item - is it still a prosecutor's trick or has it become too hokey
ReplyDeletePass a copy of the Constitution
to AG Gonzales and ask him to circle the part that says the Bill of RIghts are suspended when America goes to war.
Maybe that is hokey, and would probably get spun badly by the media, but God, that would be funny. I'm giggling just thinking about it.
You're doing great on CSPAN today bro; keep it up! Turner sounds shrill in comparison...
ReplyDeleteFirst, the argument that it will let terrorists go because their arrest is not on legal ground is ridiculous because Gonzales could say given the President has had inherent constitutional power then it is congress's problem if they can't make a law that puts away terrorists.
ReplyDeleteBush has also used FISA more than any other president, so the DeWine argument in specious. They don't have a problem with FISA and didn't think it was legal or constitutional to expand it.
They believe it is the president's constitutional power. That is the only point to debate.
Great work on C-Span this morning.
ReplyDeleteGet the discussion away from foreign wiretapping. The issue is that NSA is collecting millions of domestic calls and emails every hour.
They are wiretapping congressmen and senators, journalists, and people who oppose the administration. The information is stored in perpetuity.
Gonzales put his gameplan in the wall street journal so everyone's game plan is out there for all to read.
ReplyDeleteSaw you on CSPAN, Glenn. Good stuff, man. Keep at it. You were on every single point, countering every single fallacious talking point. It was refreshing.
ReplyDeletejrh
Holy-Moly:
ReplyDeleteMind Numbing Robot of the Left.
(Hahahhaha!)
YIKES WHO was that caller from California - an Embarrassment for perpetrating a personal attack on you!
Glenn WE LOVE ya and you did a great Job.
:-D
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteEnjoyed your duel on C-Span this morning. I'm grateful to have you on front lines in this battle. Personally, I'm growing very frustrated with the ferocious spin which seems to have become conventional wisdom in some quarters.
Specifically, this so-called "terrorist surveillance program" would have "prevented 9/11"? Jesus. I just heard someone say that these warrants "take a while to get." It's become a false choice between obeying the law on the one hand, and "keeping the country safe" on the other.
This is absurd. I can't take this anymore. This is the world I live in. I'm glad you can handle it. I can't.
Thanks so much, Glenn! You made me proud to be an American again - if only for an hour or so ;-)
ReplyDeleteOh..and as a follow-up about the Miss-California Caller to C-Span:
ReplyDeleteAre her comments in keeping with her GOP Party WHINE that abhors the "Politics of Personal Destruction"???
If ya can't attack the message...attack the messenger.
I see Swift-Boat Weenies in your future Glenn, and my crystal ball nevah lies!!!
*snark*
You stated the facts very plainly and simply this morning. I do not understand why Americans are so eager to turn their freedoms over to a handful of powerful people.
ReplyDeleteThank you for stating the constitutional law maybe someone new was listening....
Great job on c-span this morning, Glenn. I only wish Connie had allowed you to respond more often, both to the callers and to the nonsense spewed by Turner.
ReplyDeleteThanks for everything you're doing.
"Foreign Affairs is different from Domestic Affairs" states Turner toward the close of the C-Span program.
ReplyDeleteBut the whole "game plan" he's following with naked intellectual dishonesty, is to obliterate the FUNDAMENTAL, vital difference between eavesdropping on American citizens ON our shores which is in VIOLATION of the Fourth Amendment to the CONSTITUTION, vs. eavesdropping on non-citizens (and de facto "bad guys" in Turner's mind) OFF shore. Senators: please make the Constitutional and legal differences between these two sets of "people" crystal clear in your hearings.
The other intellectually dishonest game Turner is playing is to pretend (with confidence in the ignorance of his listeners) that an Executive Branch "check" on the Department of Defense's giant NSA agency is the EQUIVALENT of the "check" vested in a separate BRANCH of government by our Constitution. EVERYONE in the Executive Branch is basically under the thumb of one man - the President - especially considering the character of those who now hold office at the "whim" of George W. Bush, who brooks NO "opposition" from his underlings.
So educate us, Senators:
How, and why, are "foreign spying affairs" different from "domestic spying affairs" under our Constitution? And when NO ONE OUTSIDE of the Executive Branch knows in sufficient (or any) detail what the Executive Branch of government is up to with its $40 trillion dollar data mining intelligence budgets -- WHO GETS TO SAY which set of "affairs" we are in fact dealing with?? Someone under the thumb of the President, or an INDEPENDENT reviewer applying an INDEPENDENT "check" from the Judiciary Branch and/or the Legislative Branch?
I'll take the independent check provided for in our Constitution, Senators, thank you very much.
I see Swift-Boat Weenies in your future Glenn, and my crystal ball nevah lies!!!
ReplyDeleteMy assumption is that many C-Span listeners, including some Bush supporters, will now be checking out Glenn's blog. Some of them might not feel that the anger the Swift Boat Vets had with John Kerry was misplaced. Some of them might have contempt for Ted Kennedy -- I do.
As Glenn noted on C-Span, there are Republicans and/or non-Democrats who have expressed great objections to the NSA warrantless wire-tapping program. It would be unfortunate if any who come to read here as a result of the C-Span discussion would be able to conclude that Glenn, and his supporters in comments, are indeed all "mind-numbed robots of the left." That this is all just a partisan Bush-hating fest.
I'm not a leftist, and I voted for George Bush in '04. But you won't find anyone more strongly opposed to Bush's lying to Congress and blatant violation of FISA than me. Further, I understand the legal arguments involved, and know that Prof. Turner's claims would fail if argued in the Supreme Court, and not only with the "liberal" justices.
So, to any right-of-center new readers, I would ask that you not let anything that strikes you as mere left-wing partisanship stand in the way of researching the many legal arguments that have been posted here about the NSA warrantless surveillance in the last 6 weeks or so, and would further ask that you consider them on their merits. Just ignore any of the partisan noise that can also be found.
Managed to catch a few minutes of cSpan before I had to leave for work. Great job.
ReplyDeleteWish you'd had the chance to point out the administration HAD the information onhand to stop 9/11, but didn't put the pieces together, but that might've diverted the discussion in ways you didn't want it to go.
I was quite impressed with the way you kept the conversation focused.
Got up at o'darkthirty to watch CSPAN. Awesome job you did. Thank you. 2 thoughts on the trolls who called in: their fear is stronger than their common sense; now I know why Bush can hold onto that 39% & last, it's a shame that genius has its limitations and stupidity does not.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the argument that it will let terrorists go because their arrest is not on legal ground is ridiculous because Gonzales could say given the President has had inherent constitutional power then it is congress's problem if they can't make a law that puts away terrorists.
ReplyDeleteExcept that argument is grounded in the 4th Amendment and a long line of cases which even Gonzalez doesn't pretend to have a big enough lever to overturn.
At some point, the argument simply has to be grounded in the law, and the explanation of the law is neither complex nor esoteric, nor a distraction.
And the "inherent powers" argument is not really all that attractive. Every poll has shown, consistently, that when the issue is presented abstractly, as a shiny magical bauble that will protect us from evil, it is supported.
But add the least bit of defining reality to the question, and support begins to crumble immediately.
Describe the program in simple, clear, detail and insist that even the President doesn't have the power to write law, interpret law, and enforce law, apart from the rest of the government, and Bush has nowhere to go but down.
And if the Bush argument wins instead, then the republic is done for, and we the people willingly gave it up.
Dear Mr. Greenwald,
ReplyDeleteI saw you on television this morning and I was very impressed. Thank you for being the voice of reason concerning the rule of law and the principles of checks and balances. You did very well under ignorant and strident attack.
Susan Yabumoto
Alto, NM
Wow, you were a great spokesperson for this issue on Washington Journal this morning. I believe Senator Kennedy is making a great argument that goes to the heart of the stupidity of the Administrations use of warrently surveillance. It produces Fruit of the Poisonous Tree; i.e. evidence that cannot be used in a court of law.
ReplyDeleteI strongly disagree with comments above that Senator Kennedy's strategy is fundamentally wrong. There are two things that need to be accomplished: 1. Reframe the discussion away from the Rovian "the Dems are soft on terrorists", and change the focus to illegal acts by administration, neutralizing of Congress and Judiciary, and protection of Constitution against "remonarchization" of this republic. It's important to claim that everyone agrees, Dems included, that legal surveillance against real threats is necessary.
ReplyDelete2. Kennedy's "offer" to discuss revisiting the question of terms of surveillance is, in my opinion, a trap set for the admin. It would force them to agree that what they are doing now is verboten, and it would allow the Congress to reestablish, by the mere act of such cooperation, that it AND the courts are equal players in our form of government. If AG refuses to work with Congress on appropriate changes, claiming it's all too hush-hush, then the BS of its ineffectiveness must be stressed, as Kennedy proposes to do. One group that that is quite aware of the scope of this surveillance and knows how to easily get around it is (you guessed it): the "terrorists" themselves. They are not that dumb.
Of course, getting anywhere with the Judiciary Committee requires that Spectre (I like that spelling) and company don't quickly sweep everything into the trash. Quite likely to happen, but you have to give it your best shot (as with Alito).
Here's another (snarky) question: Re: Family Values, how does a parent reply to a child who asks why should I have to follow the rules when the president breaks them all the time?
Last point (for now): The WaPo article from yesterday makes clear that EVERY electronic communication, including phone and fax, in this country flows through the big filter, where it is flagged (or not) depending on keywords or attributes programmed in. Whoever is in charge of that filter can adjust those identifiers at will (such as. look for "impeach"), without oversight. The Prez says: Trust me. Over half the people in the country have said we don't trust you, Mr. B, yet they seem to be in favor of warrantless snooping. The issues raised in that WaPo article need to be brought to the attention of everyone who cares about what's going on in this country and how close we're getting to a state of affairs that would make Stalin and Mao drool.
While I had my doubts - I think Sen Kennedy did a great job with it - the emphasis on opening up so many persons and entities to civil and criminal liability - he did a very good job with it.
ReplyDeleteGlenn - you were great!
Zennurse:
5) The Administration does not need Congressional review if it agrees to be bound by the Constitution and have the Judicial reveiw required by the Constitution
What I was trying to say was that if the Administration had been following the approach established by the Constitution and getting Judicial Review before it acted, it would not need to be drug in front of Congress, now, for Congressional review. The main review the Constitution contemplates is judcial review (and issuance or withholding of a warrant).
Unfortunately, Kennedy would be walking into the trap of the supporters of the surveillance program by saying that it will ruin future criminal prosecutions. They would say that this is a war, not a crime problem. They would say that pursuing terrorism as a criminal problem, as was done during the Clinton administration and the first 9 months of Bush2 is what got us 9/11. They would say such questioning shows Kennedy and the democrats are stuck in a 9/10 mode of thought and are unprepared to deal with fighting a real war.
ReplyDeleteHow will this play with the public? It depends. Do you think the majority of americans believe we are at war, or do the majority think we are dealing with a criminal organization?
about the Kennedy argument about future prosecutions being jeopardized...I heard somewhere they don't need to go to court. Bush only has to declare ANY person an enemy combatant and put them away forever.He has already done this. I think it is time to analyze exactly what we mean by this war.
ReplyDeleteLet me share how I see the right wing mentality:
ReplyDelete1. They are people that claim their religion is the only one because religion for them is not about how to be...it is about solidifying an identity....shoring up an insecure ego.. and an extremely fearful one. This is why religious intolerance is so bad and so evil. It causes wars.....just look at the harm religious fundamentalism has caused in history--far more harm than good.
2. They don't anaylize things deeply....they feel things deeply. They feel threatened by people who lead the examined life in terms of reason. They are fundamentally emotional in their thinking and are afraid. Life is a mystery but they can't handle that. They fight tooth and nail for views that make them feel secure
3. They have felt excluded from mainstream society for a long time and now that they have some power they are ecstatic...but extremely worried about losing it.
4. Religion for them is not about love, learning how to live with diversity, or humility which involves the recognition that we as humans really know very little
5. They are authoritarian based and focus on power before love. Love is about letting go and welcoming all.....power is about holding tight and excluding many.
6. This group of people needs to be worked with.
Let me ask this:
What do people see in the above lists that are openings for us to heal the divide in this country? i.e. how do we take the reigns away from Rove and the Bushies in their "pit the right and left against each other so we can do our dirty work in secret" game plan? I think that the Democrats need to learn how to help right wing fundamentalists feel: 1. safer with Dems in power. Because their need to feel safe is PARAMOUNT 2. Don't rub the fact they supported the monsters that are now in power, just welcome them back to sanity. Because these people's weakness is they cannot admit being wrong 3. Learn more about what makes them tick...they are just people. And they are not bad people, just ignorant. 4 don't fall for the personal attacks anymore. Just stay on target when talking to them...sort of like the scene in Star Wars "STAY ON TARGET!" as the fighters are buzzing around the pilot that blows up the death star. Just keep coming back to the issue/idea being discussed OVER and OVER, ignoring the personal attacks.
I am new to this site. A friend sent me a link. I have read just one article so far..Unclaimed Territory. It is great!!! Sometimes brillance lies in calling our attention to the obvious and this is a great example of that.
ReplyDelete