This article from today's Washington Post is nothing short of surreal:
The federal government would have to obtain permission from a secret court to continue a controversial form of surveillance, which the National Security Agency now conducts without warrants, under a bill being proposed by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.).
Specter's proposal would bring the four-year-old NSA program under the authority of the court created by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The act created a mechanism for obtaining warrants to wiretap domestic suspects. But President Bush, shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks, authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on communications without such warrants. The program was revealed in news reports two months ago. . . .
The draft version of Specter's bill, which is circulating in intelligence and legal circles, would require the attorney general to seek the FISA court's approval for each planned NSA intercept under the program. Bush has said the agency monitors phone calls and e-mails between people in the United States and people abroad when any of them is thought to have possible terrorist ties.
It is, of course, so disorientingly bizarre to hear about a proposed law requiring FISA warrants for eavesdropping because we already have a law in place which does exactly that. It's called FISA. That's the law the Administration has been deliberately breaking because they think they don't have to comply with it and that Congress has no power to make them. Reading this article about Specter's proposed legislation is somewhat like hearing that a life-long, chronic bank-robber got arrested for robbing a bank over the weekend and, in response, a Senator introduces legislation to make it a crime to rob banks.
In fairness to Specter, one can conjure up a rationale for passing a law which requires (again) that the NSA program be conducted only with the FISA framework -- namely, that such a newly enacted law will negate the Administration's claim for future eavesdropping that the Congress gave the Administration an exemption to FISA via the AUMF (obviously, if Congress, subsequent to enactment of the AUMF, enacts a law specifically requiring any and all eavesdropping by the NSA to be conducted only under the purview of the FISA court, not even the Administration could argue that it remains exempted from FISA by virtue of the AUMF).
Regardless of the intentions, there are two glaring problems with Specter's proposed legislation. The first is that it renders the "rule of law" a meaningless illusion. Nothing in Specter's proposed legislation would release the Administration from liability or other consequences from their four-year history of intentional law-breaking, and, from what I know, he is still pursuing his legislation requiring that the question of the program's legaility be adjudicated by the FISA court.
Nonetheless, this new, proposed legislation would plainly endorse the excuse that there was something previously unclear about whether FISA warrants were required for the NSA eavesdropping - hence, the need for a new law. Not even the Administation claims that the eavesdropping in which they engaged on American citizens was outside the scope of FISA. There was nothing unclear about the law. It criminalized exactly the activities in which the Administration engaged, and no new law is needed.
The far bigger problem is that Specter's legislation ignores the actual crux of this scandal. As I've pointed out many times before, the problem we are confronting is not that the Administration specifically believes that it has the power to eavesdrop without warrants in violation of the law. It does believe that, but only as a manifestation -- a consequence -- of a much broader and more ambitious theory that vests in George Bush the power to break Congressional laws and act even in defiance of court orders on all matters relating to national security, broadly defined.
Therefore, even if Congress were to pass a law such as Specter's aimed specifically at this NSA program, the Administration has already made quite clear that it believes it has the power to violate that law. Alberto Gonzales told the Senators right to their faces that the Administration never bothered to seek approval from Congress to engage in wireless eavesdropping outside of FISA -- and that it is unnecessary for it to do so in the future -- precisely because Congress has no power to restrict what the President does.
Specter's new law would be treated by the Administration as being just as irrelevant and optional as it has treated FISA. Enacting a new law which the Administration is claiming it has the right to ignore is an exercise in futility and idiocy. The Administration has seized the power to break the law. Until that problem is resolved, Specter and his distinguished colleagues and friends in the Senate can pass all of the laws they want, but those laws will continue to be viewed by the Administration as optional suggestions which can be followed if the Administration wants to, rather than actual laws that compel adherence.
I actually think that the Administration's theories vesting George Bush with law-breaking powers are so radical and dangerous that people like Specter can't get themselves to actually accept that the Administration has really embraced these theories and is living them. Notwithstanding the fact that the Administration has expressly advocated these positions in numerous instances in many different contexts over several years now, it's as though people in Congress -- and the media -- think they're not really serious about believing them. I wonder what else needs to be revealed about the Administration's law-breaking for people to start realizing that this Administration really does not only believe that George Bush has these law-breaking powers, but also that they have been exercising those powers for quite some time now and have vowed to continue to do so.
UPDATE: My analysis here of Specter's legislation was based on the description of the proposed bill by the Washington Post article, rather than a reading of the proposed bill itself (which I wasn't able to find online yet). As a result, suggests the always insightful Marty Lederman, I actually under-stated how pernicious this legislation is and erred in some of what I said about it.
I intended not to do a lot of blogging today, so I will have a lot more to say about this tomorrow. Marty has obtained and posted Specter's draft legislation, which I have now read (though not carefully). It does indeed go far beyond simply bringing the NSA program within the purview of the FISA court. What it does is authorize the entire warrantless eavesdropping program itself by directing the FISA court to approve of it every 45 days provided some extremely permissive criteria are met, and in the process, allows eavesdropping without case-by-case warrants. In other words, as Marty points out, it renders legal the lawless NSA program and simply requires the FISA court to rubber-stamp its approval for the program every 45 days.
Nothing in the legislation grants immunity to the Administration for prior lawbreaking, nor would it preclude the legislation Specter said he intended to introduce of requring the FISA court to adjudicate the legality of the program. Clearly, though -- as several commenters in the thread after this post speculated -- Specter's intent seems to be to create an illusion of FISA court oversight over this program while handing the Administration legal cover for its previously illegal behavior. As I said, I'll post a lot more on this tomorrow.
They're afraid to confront the Admin. on these issues because (in my opinion) they know they re dealing with criminals and if it comes down to a confrontation of force over who has power, they Congress is afraid of what the Bushies will do.
ReplyDeleteThat's where we are in America. "Oh, he broke the law - no problem, let's pass a new law and hope he abides by it."
If they only had enough sense to ask themselves, "What would I think if a President Hillary" said this and did this?"
ReplyDeleteBut no, they are so tunnel-visioned they haven't understood that yet.
So, the new law will negate the Administrations claim that “future” eavesdropping is not exempt from AUMF which will give the administration cover for all of its past illegal actions implying that FISA was previously inadequate ….. then, the President will smile, sign it, adding a “Presidential finding” that his inherent powers as commander in chief in a time of war don’t compel him to obey it anyway.
ReplyDeleteBush wins. The rule of law loses. Game. Set. Match…..or, if you prefer, Checkmate.
In short, unless Spector and Republicans in Congress admit that the administration and its legal theories are fundamentally un-American showing total contempt for the rule of law, that nothing can be done to stop this administration from doing want it wants, and we will live in an executive dictatorship for the next three years at least.
In addition, any future administration can use Yoo’s legal theories to establish itself as an executive dictatorship as well.
Basically, then, unless a wooden stake is stabbed into the heart of this vampire legal theory, its undead proponents will always be able to rise up from the grave and suck the living legal blood out of our democracy depriving it of the very sustenance necessary to live.
Are Spector and the Republicans who hold power up to this task? So far, they haven’t even recognized of what we’re dealing with, let alone sharpened their wooden stakes.
And even if they recognized it, would they dare to admit it? I don't think so.
Hate to break it to you, Glenn, but enough people are NEVER going to believe it, so many people, in fact, that I forsee R majorities from here 'till - quite literally - doomsday.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things that has most surprised me since I started blogging is the extent to which so many Bush opponents have been psychologically broken, whereby they have internalized the view that their defeat is inevitable, irreversible, and permanent, and all they can do is sit around and impotently complain because Americans are going to be against them no matter what.
Although I understand why Bush followers have come to embrace the myth that the GOP has some sort of dominant stranglehold on the electorate, I don't understand why so many Bush opponents have also ingested this myth.
Before the GOP took over the House in 1994, the Democrats controlled the House for 40 years. The GOP was able to break that cycle because they figured out how to persuade Americans to change their views. Why would so many Bush opponents accept the dictate that they can't figure that out?
The GOP isn't even close to dominance. Democrats had control of the Senate as recently as 2002. More people voted for Gore than Bush in 2000 and Bush, as a "wartime" President against a politically horrendous candidate, barely won in 2004. Polls unanimously show that Bush and the GOP are wildly unpopular. Why would anyone ingest as reality Karl Rove's myth of permanent GOP dominance?
Even with regard to the NSA scandal, polls show that a majority believes the President broke the law and the program is wrong. Most people don't pay as close attention to these matters as those in the blogosphere do, and Democrats have been amazingly passive about making this case. And yet people have still reached that conclusion on their own. The Iraq War went from being widely popular to being intensely unpopular to the point where the country is against it by lopsided margings. People are susceptible to being persuaded to change their views of things as they receive more facts and explanations.
On what basis - with what evidence - could anyone conclude that there is no point in doing anything because the country supports Bush and the GOP on these issues and always will? It's a baseless defeatism that, as much as anything else, is what enables Bush followers to maintain their illusion of popularity.
I think that you're exactly right Glen, that people just can't believe that the President and his people actually believe these King-like powers. Therefore, they aren't as alarmed as they should be.
ReplyDeleteI fear this is like cooking frogs (or crabs or whatever), you do it slowly so that no one notices.
I'm not well versed in the law but it seems to me that we are brushing awfully close to ex post facto law here. I probably don't understand the principle properly but I understoon that changing or creating law that had the effect of changing the effect of law in the past was not permitted.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone else remember, Specter is the lying liar that created the "magic bullet" theory that allowed the Warren Commission to proclaim that Oswald did it -- without that lie, it would have been impossible to call Oswald a "lone-assassin"
ReplyDeleteSpecter was a tool for corrupt politicians then; he is a tool for corrupt politicians now. It is really all that simple. It also goes to show that the power-elite that undermines our democracy is not within the white house. Chimpy, cheney, rove and their band of thieves are just there to do the “dirty work” and create distractions so we don’t talk about meaningful change.
It isn’t all about the personalities in the news, its about who are they taking orders from and how the rest of us are being bamboozled so enrich a class that is wealthy beyond avarice. Its about the military industrial complex that Ike warned us about.
Glenn said:
ReplyDelete"On what basis - with what evidence - could anyone conclude that there is no point in doing anything because the country supports Bush and the GOP on these issues and always will? It's a baseless defeatism that, as much as anything else, is what enables Bush followers to maintain their illusion of popularity."
I know full well the majority doesn't support GWB, but I also know this: the GOP has a hammerlock on the media and the voting machines.What difference does it make even if 90% of the country hates his guts? The media won't say so and the machines won't reflect it.
That is why I find it so hard to be optimistic.Besides the Congressional Black Caucus, no Dems are willing to discuss the issue of black box voting, and msm act as if questions and concerns about electon '04 don't exist.
What are we supposed to do about these issues? Act like they don't exist and go on? I know I cannot do this and it colors everything, dampening my hopes that scandals such as NSA spying will ever be successfully resolved. Until we are sure our votes are being counted, you will continue to hear defeatist pessimism about our chances to resolve anything.
Man. If it weren't so life- and liberty-threatening, it would be downright hilarious.
ReplyDeletewhereby they have internalized the view that their defeat is inevitable, irreversible, and permanent
ReplyDeleteCome on glenn -- your remarks, though well-intended and not totally wrong, overlook that fact that the "opposition" does not look take a functional view of the situation and see the bigger picture.
The "internalized view" you talk about is really all about the failure to awcknowledgte where our problems really lie, much less doing anything about them.
To proclaim that chimpy is incompetent, so-and-so is a crook, blah blah blah blah blah means nothing if we don't talk about how an alcoholic/coke-head that is an intellectual midget got promoted to the president of the US
He did not do it on his merits, or the merits of anyone else that is commonly in the news (rove, cheney, etc...)
It was a stolen election in 2000 and this was not done to "do the will of the people". It was nothing less than a coup-detat.
In all likelyhood, 2004 was stolen too, but this time they took care of the ballot issues -- WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A RIGHT TO FREE, OPEN, VERIFIABLE ELECTIONS ANYMORE.
This was certainly not done to promote "democracy."
I am not saying it is time to give up, but condescending remarks about others is not going to help. MOST OF THE TIME, EVEN THE "SUPERBLOGS WILL NOT DISCUSS THE ISSUES BEHIND THE NEWS AND STORIES PRESENTED IN THE MAINWSTREAM MEDIA!
While we debate what any one lying liar is doing or saying today, the power-elite that is behind the neocons is getting ready to push the next moron onto us so that their agenda continues.
Remember, you have to be quiet when you steal -- the BIG thieves and immoral folks that create chimpy’s policies know better than to stand before the cameras.
As long as democrats are unwilling to talk about basic rights that real to a democracy (free, open, verifiable elections), the economics of the neocon agenda, and the forces that shape policy (and what some proclaim as "incompetence") -- things are not going to change.
Only the characters will change and the charade will continue...
ARLEN SPECTER AND THE JFK ASSASSINATION
ReplyDeletehttp://www.geocities.com/justicewell/specter.htm
If this site isn't deemed sufficiently "important enough" or credible -- google it yourselves.
For many, the discouragement about positive change is rooted in the fact that even on intellegent, open-minded blogs like Unclaimed Territory, many seem to forget how today's events are being managed by the same folks that brought us yesterday's disasters.
If Arlen Specter was willing to cover up the crime of the 20th century, he is surely going to be part of the biggest crimes of the 21st century.
Yet many won't discuss anything beyond the headlines in TODAY'S newspaper -- absolute insanity!
The administration is now at the point where they pick and choose willy-nilly which laws they will follow and which ones they wont. Here is a snippet from last week's Armed Services hearing where an administration flunky tells us another law they decided they wont follow: the law that requires a 45 day period for the port deal...
ReplyDelete"Yesterday, it emerged in the committee hearing that the administration may have skirted the law by not granting a 45-day review of the Dubai ports deal. The law says such a review is mandatory if a sale to a state-owned company "could affect the national security of the United States" -- a standard the administration seemed to acknowledge the deal met because it required special safeguards.
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), who wrote the 1992 law, demanded to know "why that investigation was not carried out."
Warner asked Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt to "clarify."
"Senator," Kimmitt told Byrd, "we have a difference of opinion on the interpretation of your amendment." The administration, he said, views it "as being discretionary."
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), reading the statute to Kimmitt, said the law "requires -- requires -- an investigation."
"We do not see it as mandatory," Kimmitt repeated.
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) grew irritated. "If you want the law changed," he told Kimmitt, "come to Congress and change it. But don't ignore it."
"We didn't ignore the law," Kimmitt again maintained. "We might interpret it differently."
Even Warner, though initially defending the administration, grew tired of this explanation. "I must say, as a lawyer myself, reading this, on the face, my colleagues raise a legitimate question," the chairman warned."
"On what basis - with what evidence - could anyone conclude that there is no point in doing anything because the country supports Bush and the GOP on these issues and always will? It's a baseless defeatism that, as much as anything else, is what enables Bush followers to maintain their illusion of popularity."
ReplyDeletei believe it has to do with scandal fatigue.
sadly, bush opponents have grown tired of waiting for the slooow boat of justice to dock. having witnessed an ever-increasing parade of clearly criminal activity from this administration, as well as having endured a number of important political setbacks, without having been shown enough important figures suffering important consequences, bush opponents have convinced themselves that the administration is staffed with super-geniuses, super-crooks and super-fixers, who are impervious to the law. bush opponent defeatism itself lends the administration some of its power. it's rather pathetic to watch, really. legal cases can take years to progress; exercise a little patience.
i've never been convinced that they're unbeatable or have some superhuman hold on either the voters or the ballots. from all reports, republicans are looking at a bloodbath come november. even hard-core bush supporters are succumbing to scandal fatigue, but they'll remedy it at the ballot box, if they decide to show up at all. already democrats have picked up some special election seats, so the axe has already started its descent.
iacta alea est.
Wasn't there a revelation last week about another Pentagon or NSA program that was shut down in '03 or so over legal issues, but which was simply renamed and kept operating with the same budget?
ReplyDeleteIt seems like that would be a big deal especially alongside the NSA business, but I've hardly heard anything about it.
Jeff
Also, I want to thank you, Glenn, for consistently pointing out these facts about the views of the actual population of the country, and the extent to which America is reaching its own conclusions about just what a terrible President Bush has been.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, I agree with "arggh" that part of what can be intimidating is the audacity of the major Republican victories over the last decade or so.
Starting with the impeachment of Clinton over such a trivial matter, the theft of the election in 2000 and the problems in 2004 and it really does seem that the Republicans have gotten good at the business of the "big lie".
Like sunny said, what does the will of the people matter if the elections are rigged and we don't make them do something about that?
Glenn, in a subsequent post, said:
ReplyDelete"Although I understand why Bush followers have come to embrace the myth that the GOP has some sort of dominant stranglehold on the electorate, I don't understand why so many Bush opponents have also ingested this myth."
Until recently, Glenn, Democrats at least had the hope that if they voted for a Democrat then their vote would be counted . I live in Ohio where "voting irregularities" have been rampant in recent elections. Now we're having Diebold touchscreen voting machines rammed down our throat. I've worked in data processing long enough (25 years) to know how easily these machines can (and very possibly WILL) be manipulated to keep the Republicans in power here in Ohio and in Washington. (These voting machines not only have flash cards that are easily "hacked" but they also have infrared ports, a feature for which there's NO logical explanation!) Couple that with the fact that the Ohio legislature has just recently passed a bill that, among other outrageous provisions, prohibits recounts of any Federal election results, and you might have some appreciation of why I'm so profoundly pessimistic. Without meaningful campaign financing reform (i.e., no more corporate or private contributions - all campaigns should be 100% financed using public funds) and without voting machines that are 100% tamper-proof, I fear the Republicans will continue to dominate politics in America.
Specter's new legislation sounds like a ploy to help Shrub avoid impeachment. I don't believe I'm saying this, but perhaps the great minds up there on the hill think our nation will suffer greater damage if Bushco is called to account. Perhaps they possess knowledge that we do not and are compelled to act in this way.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, perhaps impeaching Bush is not in our national interest, rule of law be damned. If we give Specter et al the benefit of the doubt here, we might realize they are in a very awkward position.
Removing the chimperor, aside from being politically difficult, will likely wreak further physical and economic woes 'pon our nation.
I'm just sayin...
Jeff - that program was Poindexters "Total Information Awareness" program, data-mining to the 10th. It didn't get shut down, it just went "black" and is likely in full operation today.
ReplyDeleteI was amazed how the traditional media utterly failed to pick up the "other programs" ball when in rolled into their laps a few weeks ago. The "other programs" were obliquely referred to by Gonzales in his squirreling around, and explicitly by former NSA operative Tice.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/30387/
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0223nj1.htm
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteIf described accurately by the Washington Post ( which not something you can assume from the press concerning legal issues), then I would agree with you that the proposed bill is redundant and, I would add, just as unconstitutional as applying the current FISA law to limit the President's Article II authority.
Don't get to worked up over this bill, though. Something along the lines of the DeWine bill ratifying the current program with greater oversight will pass in the last couple months before the election.
This issue has already been decided by both parties. The Dems just haven't let you folks in their base know yet because they are busy keeping you riled up so they can take your campaign contributions...
How does it feel to be used?
The DOJ wants to investigate Congress now because of the lack of ethic commitee action.
ReplyDeleteCongress doesn't know what it's doing.
The people have to push Congress in the right direction until we vote them out.
Both parties have failed us.
The excutive branch is trying to block us from having any say in how the country is run.
The ports deal is a saving grace.
It makes it hard for the excutive branch to grab more power.
It isn't Congress that the executive branch is afraid of, it's us.
Saluki,
ReplyDeleteJust stop sayin' if that's all your sayin'.
Look, if I have gangrene in my foot, it WILL hurt to amputate, and it WILL change my life to be an amputee, but sometimes the treatment IS painful and life-altering. But note, death is far more life-altering than a mere amputation.
Rick
If they only had enough sense to ask themselves, "What would I think if a President Hillary" said this and did this?"
ReplyDeleteBut no, they are so tunnel-visioned they haven't understood that yet.
The 'President Hillary' argument doesn't work if you believe that you'll never have to go into Opposition again', and really doesn't work if you have the means to never have to go into opposition again.
I'm not talking about Diebold, although that's a serious issue.
I'm talking about a climate where voting for, or belonging to, one political party is per se a national security threat.
And when all the stories of the NSA warrentless interceps come out, there will be a list of opposition figures with no non-risible Al Qaeda links on it. Surveillance of them will be justified on the grounds that by opposing the present regime they had ispo facto become national security threat.
And repeating it a hundred times a day from every virtual megaphone will make it so.
Remember the 2004 GOP platform?
"Vote for us, or the country gets it."
Cheney told us that if we voted for Kerry we were all gonna die.
Forebrain politics.
It works.
They're not changing it.
These aren't the days of the Federalist Papers any more.
all of the ways that republicans keep caving/or taking strange paths supports my tin foil hat thoughts.
ReplyDeletewhat wiretapping/listening to republicans has revealed to bush/rove to use to keep congress inline?
they all bend over and it is only katrina that ever gets a hearing.
i cannot believe they havent gotten calls from constiuents on this issue.i call senator graham and senator demint.we need an election to clean house.
br3n
hey bart, glad you got your fill of the html lessons downstairs
ReplyDeleteDon't mind your inane banter and foolish take on events -- can even accept the wingnut talking points you spew...
just thanks for not using bold tags...
We know you are not one of the "super rich" base that is actually making out like bandits over chimpy's policies -- you would have better things to do than make lame comments here that will never persuade anyone.
Guess if your 200 tax check in 2001 was enough to sell out our democracy, we already know everything we need to about your ability to think clearly. We also know that you have a pre-1776 mindset.
Well, this has me scratching my head. It doesn't even appear to be an attempt to bleach the stain the president has created. Just a big waste of time. Unless this is an attempt to put the brakes on a different program.
ReplyDelete"Remember the 2004 GOP platform?
ReplyDelete"Vote for us, or the country gets it."
Cheney told us that if we voted for Kerry we were all gonna die."
And yet, that election was one of the closest votes there's ever been. And who knows HOW it would have gone if the voting in Ohio was fair.
This is one of the points Glenn is making--in spite of the relentless propaganda associating dissent with treason and disaster, when you look at the actual opinions of people and the margins of the elections, it's fairly clear how people really feel.
Jeff
And who knows HOW it would have gone if the voting in Ohio was fair.
ReplyDeleteWell, it isn't hard to guess -- chimpy only has a 37% approval rating there and only 72% in FL. He is only above 50% in a few western states -- even the confederate "red" states don't support him.
The election was not just stolen in OH -- Alaska will not allow the data from the election to be reviewed because of "security"
Check out these numbers -- those that understand stats know chimpy did not win in 2004 based on exit polls, but even today's polls show that chimpy was never the "wildly popular" preznut that "most americans would want to have a beer with"
http://surveyusa.com/50State2006/50StateBushApproval060216Approval.htm
yeah right -- American really wants "a beer" with an abusive alcoholic/cokehead...
Not that chimpy has ever enjoyed "1 beer" in his life...
Does anyone else remember, Specter is the lying liar that created the "magic bullet" theory that allowed the Warren Commission to proclaim that Oswald did it -- without that lie, it would have been impossible to call Oswald a "lone-assassin"
ReplyDeleteExcept that it wasn't a lie -- all the evidence supports the claim. I too was a JFK conspiracy theorist before the internet came along and made that evidence available. Take off your tin foil hat long enough to look at
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm
Since Glenn linked the NSA scandal and the Dubai port deal in an earlier post, has anyone considered that the uproar over the port deal may just be a way of drawing attention away from the NSA deal? I mean think about it. Congress looked like it was ready to let Bush off the hook on the NSA thing. Of course that would have been seen has the Congress caving in to the White House. But now that the Dubai deal is big news, they can look like they are standing up to the Bush administration on this while they are secretly cutting a deal to let Bush slide on his unlawful behavior.
ReplyDeleteoh yeah -- a marquette professor has all the answers...
ReplyDeletesaw that site years ago -- guess he needs something to do when not bending over to recieve communion at BOTH ENDS!!!!!
Even Gerald Ford has said that the "magic bullet" theory is not correct...
But if it is settled in your mind... feel free to disagree
Guess the bigger point is that he is part of a cover-up now and I don't give a damn what the apologists have to say about his participation in previous cover-ups
Mike, I was going to make the same point. This morning I read that Frist has worked out a "compromise" which suggests that they conduct a 30 -45 day review of the ports deal. This is the same shit as Specter is pulling. They have already broken the damn law, and instead of enforcing it the Repubs essentially change the law and make it retroactive to the time at which the administration knowingly and unapologetically broke it.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, I ask you again in all seriousness, what keeps the citizens of this country from insisting that the laws be enforced? Is this a country of laws, or is it not. It should be that simple.
I think it's become obvious, even to Republicans in congress, that Bush is breaking the law. The problem for them is that if they act in this knowledge, they know they'll have to impeach him. This would have such a devastating effect on their own futures as Republican candidates that they can't bring themselves to do it. They know they should be doing something, so they scramble for ways to wiggle out of starting a process that they know would end in impeachment, by looking for creative ways around it, like this pathetic attempt by Specter.
ReplyDeleteI grew up as an American taught to believe things like this couldn't happen here because the Rule of Law has so many systemic advocates it catches things like this and brings them back into line with itself. One of those systemic advocates is supposed to be the MSM. Why they are currently paralyzed is a mystery to me. During Watergate it was the MSM that so boldly stepped up and created the attitude toward the crisis that allowed the rest of the system to kick in. Granted, we had an opposition congress at the time, but if the MSM were doing its job, conventional wisdom would create the necessary momentum to force even a republican congress to do its job. As it is, the MSM has stepped back and scratched its collective ass and pretended this debate about the power of the POTUS to break the law is some legitimate argument about the separation of Powers. Not sure how depressed to become about that development. The MSM has to start to call this one accurately. The people need to know their president has broken the law. This shouldn't be such a hard thing for them. If we've reached a point where our MSM refuses to do its job, we're in bad need of a grasroots movement to find another way to communicate with ourselves.
I understand the gloom that pervades much of the public perception here, but I agree with Glenn we can't let this happen without a fight.
First of all, the Diebold Problem has to be forced into the debate as a legitimate issue. So far the MSM has treated it with the skepticism it reserves for UFO sightings, but there's plenty of reason to be worried about a system that allows such easy access to "mischief." I think the Republicans in congress know the problem exists, but only let themselves know enough to know it's supposed to work in their favor, so they encourage the view that its some fringe concern. If some left-leaning hackers would start a rumor that they've figured out how to use the Diebold machines to get dems elected, (or better yet, do it) the republicans would act so fast you'd get windburn.
I've always assumed so many people would have to be involved in a conspiracy to rig voting machines that they'd get caught fairly quickly. The 2004 election changed my mind. I figured the first clue would be a glaring discrepancy with exit-polls, and the media would jump on it. I even assured paranoid friends of mine of this on election day. After all, exit polls have been used to call elections as long as I can remember. I assume this is because they're accurate. If not, why are they still using them? Boy did I feel foolish at the end of the day last November. So the 2004 election changed my thinking and the Diebold problem has to be addresseed before we can feel secure in the sanctity of our elections again. The shoe needs to be put on the other foot to make this happen. I challenge left-leaning hackers to make this happen.
I love David Shaugnessy's idea. I've often thought we're seeing a new reality take shape in the blogosphere. How to translate this into genuine efficacy is the next question. If we could start a new criteria for candidacy that allows us to get beyond the Dem/Rep stranglehold we'd be lightyears ahead.
Glenn writes: Although I understand why Bush followers have come to embrace the myth that the GOP has some sort of dominant stranglehold on the electorate, I don't understand why so many Bush opponents have also ingested this myth.
ReplyDeleteAnswer: Because there is no symmetry to relative power of the two parties.
First, the GOP has an overwhelming buit-in advantage in the Senate, where half a dozen wingnuts in Wyoming can have the same voting clout as half a million Democrats in California.
Second, the GOP is enlarging that builtin advantage through relentless gerrymandering, takeover of the lobbying apparatus, etc.
Third, the media is slavishly pro-business (if decreasingly pro-Bush) and so can be counted on to give the GOP a pass on its criminality in re Abramoffgate and the rest (see Deb Howell). Worse, liberal activists seem blind to the structural reasons for this bias, and think that if they simply complain enough, the Media Monopoly will magically align itself with the values of fairness and objectivity.
Fourth, enough Americans can be counted on to always sell out their granchildren for an unpaid-for tax cut, thereby making it irrelevant whether you can fool all the people all the time.
Fifth, the Democratic Party demonstrates on an almost daily basis that they are indeed the Washington Generals of politics.
I think those are sufficient reasons for being pessimistic about any kind of serious threat to GOP hegemony.
via, America is a country where most people don't pay attention to politics unless they have to. Period.
ReplyDeleteThey consider all politicians crooks, except for their own Congresspersons. And even if their own Congresspersons are as crooked as a corkscrew, as long as some of that corruption benefits the home folks, the home folks will keep voting "yea." Really egregiously corrupt pols in other states? Not the home folks' problem, since there's not much they can do about it.
The distrust of government generally, which is supposed to be useful in avoiding tyranny, no longer works that way. It's been turned on its head, actually, with most Americans assuming that government is inherently awful, so why bother insisting it be anything else?
Also, unless and until they actually need the government to work for them, most Americans neither know nor care when the government doesn't work for people who are invisible anyway (i.e., the poor, the disenfranchised, etc.).
Put that all together, you get a national population that barely pays attention, considers the government someone else's problem, and doesn't expect much from it in the first place.
So: an Administration that consistently breaks the law in terms of internal processes? "Big deal" - people don't care if the WH does or doesn't notify Congress of this or that, since it has nothing to do with them.
An Administration that consistently breaks the law in terms of how it imprisons people and treats them? "Big deal" - few people actually know any of the detainees, and are very sure none of those regrettable policies will ever apply to them.
The war in Iraq is the only issue that might - might - break through that apathetic complacency. And yet, it's also an issue that the Democratic Party seems scared to death of. Even if people are mad as hell about the war, there's no place they can turn to effectively express their anger, and no politician of national standing willing to be their standard bearer.
There also aren't any politicians of national standing capable of expanding disgust with the war into a critique of the Bush Admin's and GOP's general corruption/incompetence/treasonous malfeasance.
I hate to say it, but I am almost afraid to be non-partisan now. I am so afraid that any vote other than for a dem will split the party even further and give the Repubs one more vote, and it terrifies me to think that they will continue to control congress. I like Feingold, and I like Gore. I wish we could run Bill Clinton again.
ReplyDeleteDavid, yes, I know you are right, but it would have to be a candidate who is not afraid to say NO to this administration and demonstrate the leadership skills necessary to change the enabling behavior of others. Who is out there who can convince the voters that solving the nation's problems is going to require financial sacrifice on the part of everyone? We need a vision of the America that can be, and the willingness to make the tough choices necessary to make it be. Do you see anyone out there exhibiting that leadership right now?
ReplyDeleteI am pasting in a letter I received back from Senator Obama (my response to his response is available upon request). Note that Obama says "I share the President's concern that the current judicial review process is outdated and cumbersome" and that he is working with Specter to draft "legislation that would subject all elements of the President's domestic surveillance program to judicial review". Either he knows something we don't or he doesn't feel the FISA violation is an impeachable offense. Though I like Obama, I guess his hands are in this FISA revision pie as well.
ReplyDeletebon appetit!
***
Thank you for contacting me regarding President Bush's domestic surveillance program. I understand your concern about the constitutional implications of this debate, and I appreciate your skepticism about the legal justification for the President's program.
In my view, no president should conduct unlimited wiretaps on American citizens without obtaining a court warrant. Further, I agree with the principle laid out by Justice Robert Jackson in a landmark 1952 Supreme Court case that the president's authority is weakest when his actions are in direct opposition to the will of the Congress. The legislature has expressed this desire consistently with respect to seeking judicial review of electronic surveillance.
Judicial review of executive authority is critically important to maintaining our constitutional system and maintaining the rule of law. Presidential power cannot be left unchecked, and the principle of meaningful judicial review of domestic surveillance must be preserved. Congress should ensure that someone is watching the watchers.
At the same time, we cannot hamstring this or any president in the fight against terrorism. I share the President's concern that the current judicial review process is outdated and cumbersome. Since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was passed in 1978, both technology and the type of threat we face has changed significantly. Congress needs to make the judicial review process more robust and flexible. The President should have the tools to conduct surveillance in the war on terror, but he should be able to do so within the limits of the law.
The American people understand that our nation faces new threats that require flexible responses from government to keep us safe. They know that wiretapping is one of those responses. But people also remember that we fought a revolution over the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure – to ensure that our government was precluded from invading our homes in the middle of the night for no reason.
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is drafting legislation that would subject all elements of the President's domestic surveillance program to judicial review. I am working with Senator Specter on this essential legislative initiative. I am disappointed, however, by the recent agreement reached by Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) and the White House whereby Chairman Roberts would forbear from an investigation into the legality of the spying program in return for assurances that the White House would brief Congress more thoroughly than it has in the past and submit proposed changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This kind of "trust me" approach is simply insufficient.
Our country's intelligence gathering capability needs to be improved to reflect the reality of the post-9/11 world. Like many members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, this goal can be accomplished without compromising the rule of law. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate in the coming weeks.
Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
United States Senator
**************
David:
ReplyDeleteThe only person who stands out to me is Congressman Ron Paul from Texas.
McCain & Feingold pushed through their campaign finance reform bill resulting in what many of us considered a direct assault on the 1st ammendment..."Congress shall make no law..."
I'm not sure these guys are the idols we want to rally around to support other parts of the law & Constitution.
David, I like Feingold more and more every time he opens his mouth. Definitely worth supporting, and watching, though his vital stats (liberal, divorced, Jewish) might be problematic.
ReplyDeleteMcCain's a fake maverick, a fake straight-talker, and just plain fake.
Unseating the GOP majority in at least one House in 2006 is vital, absolutely vital. The GOP might conceivably throw Bush over the side - though the latest maneuvering to save Bush's face regarding the NSA spy scandal and the port scandal leads me to doubt that - but the GOP will continue Bushist policies under another name.
This cannot be overemphasized. The GOP is corrupt, it's too beholden to genuinely anti-American interests (the paleocons and religious Right), it continues to cover up for Bush, it continues to enable and pursue policies that are simply disastrous for the country.
Nothing can be fixed or saved while a GOP majority still controls Committees, agendas, judicial nomination votes, and oversight responsibilities. They have screwed the country over top to bottom.
The GOP has to go.
If that means electing partisan Democrats, well ... at least Democrats still believe in habeas corpus and Constitutional law, still believe governmental agencies should do their jobs rather than be staffed by ideologues and cronies, and won't continue to underfund or defund essential government programs. So I'm willing to take that chance.
While David’s idea is certainly appealing in theory, I think that the two parties have been institutionalized to such an extent that in the short term I don’t think it will be feasible.
ReplyDeleteThe Republican Party has changed dramatically in recent years. It is no longer a party of “limited” government that would provide a check upon the excesses of Democrats. Rather, they have embraced their own concepts of “big” government, only with different priorities.
That’s one of the reasons it has become so corrupt and scandal-ridden under Bush. They no longer even attempt to cut programs or make them more efficient, instead they are now using them to enrich themselves and push other agendas – particularly those of those of the religious right – which is the wild card that could make this theory unworkable.
Today’s Republican Party has become dependent upon religious radicals and knows it cannot win elections without them. I think that before the idea David is proposing can actually happen on the national level (it’s more workable on state local levels and at that level I’ve voted for members of both parties) the Republican radicals who came to power riding the support of the religious right must first be removed from office and replaced with a saner version of Republicans.
The other wild card is money. Since McCain-Feingold (the campaign financing law) didn’t actually change much, and candidates will still be dependent upon their “Party” for money. And the “Party” will appeal to single issue groups to raise money as well. Thus divisiveness will continue – especially regarding the polarization of Supreme Court appointments.
In short, I think that several changes in our political institutions are necessary before such a non-partisan ticket would be possible.
I wish we lived in a country where we could put integrity and other characteristics above partisanship; but sadly, Rove has been running successful campaigns by demonizing his opponents and dividing the electorate, (plus the media in turn plays along exacerbating the problem by treating politics as a sporting event with “teams” for increased ratings) - and I don’t see it changing anytime soon.
David Shaughnessy said:
ReplyDeleteMy question is this: Do others wonder, as I do, whether progressive bloggers of all political affiliations should attempt to coalesce around specific politicians and political candidates who demonstrate the qualities needed in political leaders in these dangerous times (again, regardless of their political affiliation)?
I do wonder that too. I think there are two problems with this approach. 1) If the specific candidate is a member of one of the two big parties, they could be pressured to withdraw, even despite popular support. See Paul Hackett in Ohio. 2) The American political system, with the winner-take-all method of electoral votes, almost ensures only two major parties.
And I am afraid that Democratic partisanship will merely perpetuate the vicous cycle of partisan attacks and counter-attacks. Isn't there a better way?
I hate to say it, but unless the system is re-tooled to be more of a parlimentary-type vote like the one that exists in Canada (which obviously has it's own problems), a better way will never materialize. This I know: if a legitimate 3rd-party candidate materializes that people can really get behind, Rs and Ds will join together in defeating that person. Political power is a zero-sum game.
"On what basis - with what evidence - could anyone conclude that there is no point in doing anything because the country supports Bush and the GOP on these issues and always will?"
ReplyDeleteOK, Glenn. Here's the evidence.
I have been with you from the beginning, passionately, because I believed that it was becoming increasingly apparent that the country was close to collapse, was becoming a Police State, and as evidence of more and more of these "atrocities" mounted and was aired over the Internet, and opposition to these "atrocities" was led by people like you, effective change might be possible.
Now, I don't think that any longer. Let's create a "THEM" and throw into it everything that any of us believes may be involved. Let's grant, for purposes of argument, that it includes neocons who want to use the world as a chess board with human lives as the pawns, the military industrial complex, the Carlye Group, basic human corruption, power mad despots, secret cabals, corrupt leaders of foreign nations who are co-conspirators, cowardly status quo, weak politicians interested only in getting elected----everything under the sun that could possibly be involved in the evil behind the machine.
We can just call that "force" which is destroying this country "them", and leave it to others to decipher the full roster of membership in that "them."
The only important point to note is that "THEY" have become so powerful, over so many decades, their poisonous roots growing so deep, that they have now arrived at the point where they have a virtual stranglehold on the political process, and are not going to surrender their power without a fight to the death.
What solutions are being bandied about in the blogosphere?
l) There are those like you, Jane, thersites, who argue that specific programs like illegal spying should be focused on and fought as a first step to taking on the whole issue of government lawlessness and abuse.
2) There are those like Daily Kos, Act Blue and others who argue that throwing out the Republicans and putting in Democrats will change things.
3) There are those who think that the corrupt practices that subvert the will of the people like rigged voting machines are the problem, and to rail against those practices will make a difference.
Although the grassroots seems to be against THEM, and many people are beginning to agree that THEM includes GOVERNMENT in general, regardless of party, the "people" have revealed themselves to be a group of decidedly average minds, a large majority of whom content themselves with childish infighting and name calling, unable to grasp or come together in support of even the most basic ideas or strategies to effectuate change.
In short, the "people" are not of the same caliber of intellect as the Framers. The difference between now and then is that the Framers, who were the good guys, also had the power. They could differ amongst themselves, but there was no internal "power machine" that had to be overthrown before their ideas could prevail. Once they shed off the shackles of English rule, they had the reins in their hands. They had only to agree among themselves, a relatively small group of people, how to proceed. Once they agreed, they had the power to turn their idea of government into a reality.
What I am saying is this:
l) Fighting specific programs like NSA spying isn't going to happen, unless the "people" were to be able to get a large, committed number of politicians in either party to speak up on their behalf. That appears not to be happening, and if it doesn't, not one of these demands for "inquiries", etc., is going to go anyplace.
2) That suggests that merely substituting Democrats for Republicans is a meaningless enterprise, and yet that one single thought is what inspires most of the energy of the blogosphere and the grassroot progressives. Apparently they have not yet realized that the Democrats who they want to put in are the exact same group as the Republicans they want to throw out.
For once, bart is right. Progressives, Democrats, the Daily Kos people, MoveOn, all of them are just being used. The Democrats who solicit their support are NOT supporting the effort to effectuate a sea change in how things are run in this country. They merely mouth platitudes to get elected. They're two bit fundraisers at heart. Once in, it will be business as usual.
Another problem is that the "capitalists" who were men of vision and whose energy and inventiveness changed the world and made this country into a superpower are gone now. They've been replaced by a group of ruthless titans, propped up by special favors from government (which is only the case because capitalism itself is gone, so for businessmen to compete in this mixed economy, they have to play the corrupt game of lobbying government for "favors") who care only for profit, at the expense of principle, and who actually support this beast into which our government has evolved.
I watched an executive from Cisco testifying to Congress yesterday, and I was shocked. It was almost like watching Gonzales. The slickness, the doubletalk, the evasion, the smirking, the refusal to take responsibility for immoral, intrusive, unprincipled un-American business practices was mindblowing.
Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, AT&T--ALL of them---they've become part of the corruption, part of the spying machine. Do you hear any of their executives speaking out against what is happening? No. Are there any "Businessmen against illegal spying" groups? No. As long as it benefits their bottom line, they're willing, anxious even, to go along with the program. The last thing they want is the kind of change that we here yearn for, and I am not talking about socialialist policies. I am talking about a principled, accountable government which acts in the best interest of this nation and has not been hijacked by deference to corrupt cronies and corrupt special interest groups, driven by money, impervious to values.
There is simply no sense of shared outrage, based on principle, to bind the various groups who are expressing discontent. It's as if "outrage" has become localized, focused on this or that issue, this or that person, this or that abuse, but there is not a cohesive, clearly stated, effectively directed, nationally agreed upon outrage at the whole corrupt system.
And if there were, it's possible that it would be stifled and squashed before it had time to blossom. The increasing police powers of the government, the expanded "secret service", are brilliantly devised to stifle every conceivable form of dissent. They may be too set in stone now to displace, short of a revolution.
This is my conclusion: the Port deal is an issue which has cut through party lines. It has impassioned a large majority of the American people. In my own immediate circle, I have never seen such passion about a single issue.
Yet the early betting line about its implications was all wrong.
First most of us were like thersites. We assumed this was such an insane idea, with so much oppostion from the constituencies, that it would be defeated and a crack would be formed in Bush's impenetrable armor. Even Bush, we thought, is not powerful enough to pull this one off. He's miscalculated. He'll pay the price.
That was a wrong assumption. The deal is going through.
Second, it was obvious to everyone, to you, me, David S., everyone, that if the Democrats could seize this issue and somehow use it to mobolize the opposition forces, they would be able to piggyback on this issue and use it to start the process of dismantling the present corruption which permeates all levels of government.
But the Democrats are in the process of doing exactly the opposite!!!
Some unsophisticated commentators on blogs like the Huffington Post write things like "Of course it's going to go through. The Republicans control both houses."
This misses the point completely. You are smart enough to realize, Glenn, that if the majority of visible Democrat policitians held firm against this deal, then even if every single Republican was coerced into going along with the deal, it would. not. go. through.
The Republicans would be crazy to hand to the Democrats an election issue which unites 64% of the public, and unites them passionately.
But, conveniently for the Republicans, they don't have to face that choice. The Democrats have arrived, as they always do, to let them off the hook, giving up the political strategic advantage the issue could have afforded them, and losing control of our ports in the process.
The only reason this deal is going through is because the Democrats are revealing themselves to be just as enthusiastically corruptible as the Republicans.
If all Republicans and all Democrats support the deal, nobody has to answer for that position in the elections. Who are people going to vote for in protest? There is no one. Both the Democrats and the Republicans know that, so the Democrats are willing to take their chances and go along with the gravy train that feeds them.
If the Democratic leadership allows this to happen, I think if you are sincere you will have to admit that what some say is true: the Democrats really are stupider than the Republicans. And weak, corruptible, stupid leaders are never going to lead anyone out of the morass.
This much is 100% clear to me. If the Port deal goes through, then there isn't going to be any meaningful investigation into illegal activities, into intrusive policies, into immoral programs like the torture of detainees, there isn't going to be anything.
At that point, the only logical conclusion for a smart person would be to stop wasting his time, energy and money tilting at windmills.
If the Port deal goes through, all is lost not only because the Port deal is a horrible idea, which it is, but because it is black and white proof that the "people" cannot win on any point by putting pressure on their elected officials, because pressure itself is meaningless if the Democrats and Republicans, in the end, are actually in secret lockstep. And it looks like they are.
The only thing that would bring me back into the debate if the Port deal goes through, because I am smart enough to recognize a losing cause when I see one, is if there were a Third Party formd, beholden to no-one, headed up by a very visible, nationally known figure like Howard Dean or Al Gore, or some principled ex- Republican, if there is one. Not John McCain. He's just another cog in the corrupt power machine, and an unapologetic war hawk.
If that unlikely thing were to happen, I believe that if that individual ran on a program of opposing the police state, opposing the war and all pre-emptive wars, opposing spying, opposing torture, opposing the selling out of America to foreigners at the expense of national security and control over our own country, opposing abuse of government, and executive power in specific, etc., that person would win in a landslide.
That's where the majority of Americans are now, but the problem is, it doesn't appear to be where either national party is.
Finally, the only bright note that I see, but I don't think it's going to happen, is that if the Democrats were to band together now and scuttle this Port deal, then I think that would be the beginning of the end for the Dark Side, and Victory, with it entails, would be in sight.
Short of that, it's taps.
Does anyone speak Italian here? There's a great Italian saying that goes something like "Finito la fiesta e cessare la musica."
I forget it exactly, but it means the party's over, and the musicians are going home.
It seems like that may be the most apt description for where we are now in America.
Two top-priority reforms of the American political system:
ReplyDelete1) Ranked-choice, "instant-runoff" voting. With ranked choice voting, for the first time there will be a verifiable way of determining the actual political spectrum in the USA, as well as being able to adjudge the appeal of the 2 major parties. It will winnow the difference between those who vote for one of the Big 2 because they think they're the best choice, or because they're resigned to doing it in order to defeat an opposition that they view as worse.
One especially important feature of ranked-choice voting is that it's a relatively minor balloting reform that doesn't require the sort of cataclysmic upheaval entailed by switching over to a parliamentary system. It would combine the simplicity of majoritarian rule with the political pluralism of parliamentary rule.
2) Return to analog, hard-copy balloting. Computer ballot machines can be made available to the physically challenged voters who require them. Otherwise, this system requires hard-copy balloting.
It amazes me that both houses of Congress are apparently comprised of technolgical naifs who don't understand that casting ballots in the digital realm is an inherently untrustworthy process, and it will always be subject to abuses that, unlike analog voting theft, are ultimately untraceable. Personally, I don't even trust "paper verification"- how is that to be assessed, after the fact? Is everyone who voted required to keep their receipts and present them to the authorities on demand?
I think that the two reforms of ranked choice voting and demanding paper ballots are both more important and more easily implementable than campaign finance reform measures.
"...That's where the majority of Americans are now, but the problem is, it doesn't appear to be where either national party is...."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, postively, without doubt, indisputably true. [In my opinion, at any rate, anonymous at 6:04 PM...] A viable third party would leave the two-party-machine far behind in the dust, in nothing flat.
I was also once fooled by McCain. No more. He is a fraud.
That Barack Obama missive (thanks for posting it, 'saluki') sickens and infuriates me. He SO wants to be a "player". Obama YEARNS to play the game the way McCain plays it. And I have further proof of the approach he uses in that 'saluki' letter, from a fundraising appeal (for a new PAC he's establishing) that I've recently seen. Obama COUNTS ON the IGNORANCE of his audience. He does NOTHING to inform and enlighten his audience, but instead plays off their fears and prejudices to his own advantage. We KNOW here that FISA was AMENDED POST-9/11 to reflect current technologies and the new realities and need to guard against attacks by terrorists... But disingenuous Obama is happy to mislead his uninformed constituents into thinking that the FISA law hasn't been touched since it was first passed in 1978.
How, exactly, does having people like that in the "majority" (by a VERY slim margin), come next year, truly make a difference?
We DO need to break the visegrip the two parties have on the nation's throat. And I believe (though I am not at all informed on this) that the place to start is with the changes made in the late 1800s to our electoral process, in an effort to block any threat posed by the newly freed slaves at the ballot box. The result has been a state-run exclusionary process for getting on the ballot at all, never mind funding a race, to the benefit of the two parties, and the exclusion of anyone else. As with electronic vote-counting, I believe it will take a state-by-state effort.
And as for the PAC Cash: that in some ways may be easier to do an end run around. There are enough people in this country to make multiple small donations to one central national candidate-financing fund an enormous threat to the PAC Cash funding committees of Congress. That might just work to enable us to buy our way in to Congress, without party funding, with enough principled candidates to allow us to effect the remaining federal changes needed to return control of our legislature to the people.
Wise men saw this coming. Here's a quote from Abraham Lincoln that was included in a Letter to the Editor in my local paper the other day:
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of war, corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the republic is destroyed. I feel, at this moment, more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."
[From a letter by Lincoln to Col. William F. Elkins on November 21, 1864]
If the FISA court will have to rubber stamp the new rules, can they then revolt aginst this and reufse to be a rubberstamp. Everything I have read suggests they aren't too happy about this.
ReplyDeleteGlenn Greenwald Tries a Fast One:
ReplyDeleteNot even the Administation claims that the eavesdropping in which they engaged on American citizens was outside the scope of FISA.
Of course they do. Gonzalez testified to exactly that, something you've been braying about over and over again in one of the countless paragraphs of your million word posts. In addition, it is clear from the administration's Court of Review appeal of FISA's Patroit Act rulings in the In Re: Sealed Case, as reported by Byron York and others, that the administration has has been advancing rock-solid legal arguments to support its position that the NSA warrantless wiretapping program is not only well within the president's inherent authority under Article II, but also outside the provisions of the FISA act.
How you can make that statement about the administration, when the opposite evidence is splayed liberally across the landscape of your blog, is stunningly mysterious.
that the administration has has been advancing rock-solid legal arguments to support its position that the NSA warrantless wiretapping program is not only well within the president's inherent authority under Article II, but also outside the provisions of the FISA act.
ReplyDeleteI understand that if you will sit an talk to charlse mansion, he will give you "rock solid" evidence that what he did was justifiable too...
I am sure hitler would have prevailed in court too -- at least if the nazis had won WWII
How you can make that statement about the administration, when the opposite evidence is splayed liberally across the landscape of your blog, is stunningly mysterious.
ReplyDeleteHow stupid is Gedaylia? He's about 2 months and 100 IQ pointsb behind for this blog.
Real slowly: There is a difference between claiming that (a) the eavesdropping engaged in by the Administration is outside the scope of FISA, and (b) there is a legal justification for not obtaining FISA warrants even though the eavesdropping is within the parameters of FISA.
The Administration's position is (b), but not - as Glenn correctly stated - (a). They don't claim (a) and never have. God, you're stupid.
charlse mansion
ReplyDeleteThis gave me a good laugh.
First and foremost priority of the net roots should be to shoot down this legislation and demand that there be a real investigation.
ReplyDeleteEducation as to what FISA actually does is another priorty that needs attention.
This all points toward November, 2006. They're pulling out all the stops. When to the Dems go on the offensive? Where are the TV ads? Now?
ReplyDeleteMidniterider: A viable third party would leave the two-party-machine far behind in the dust, in nothing flat.
ReplyDeleteThis statement is true. The only thing keeping most from seeing it is the propaganda machine of both parties, and the MSM, all of whom lose by the creation of a national, principled third party.
The creation of such a party would involve finding a Presidential candidate who is already a national figure, someone who, even though this person or that person may not agree with all of his past positions, would be incontestably viewed as trustworthy.
The party should really be running on the basic premise of simply doing away with the corrupt two party system, and putting in people of principle and vision who support the Constitution.
I don't think the party should take a stance on abortion, one way or the other, as it's such a divisive issue. It's platform should be, let's get in the door, end the corruption, and then figure out how we can all work together to come up with a solution to some of these divisive issues.
After all, the conservatives believe that each state should determine it's own abortion laws. So they have nothing to complain about if the states vote in favor of allowing abortions. Most states would. A few wouldn't. That would have to be handled, by transporting people to other states which have legal abortions or something like that. That's better than having our whole country collapse into a sea of corruption because one party plays to a religious base which thinks abortion is murder.
New ideas have to be developed and disseminated to end this endless abortion debate. Pills which are taken early, which eliminate the need for surgery, should be discussed more openly, and their benefits should be advertised. Maybe foods could be devloped that contain contraceptives in them, so women could automatically obtain contraceptive benefits every morning when they eat their breakfast.
These types of issues never see much daylight, because both the Democrats and Republicans raise such a large percentage of their funds from people with passionate opinions, one way or the other, about abortion. Meanwhile, Nero fiddles while Rome burns.
If the Third Party were smart, and wanted to actually win elections, it would thow a very big bone to Big Business, and investors in general. It would call for the elimination of all taxes on capital gains. That would go far toward getting the votes of Wall Street and big business in general, the people with deep pockets who presently donate so much money to the two party system.
The money saved on strangling the military industrial complex and on ending this eternal warfare that wastes most of the money in this country would be enough to balance the budget anyway, and as most money earned from investments is reinvested, it would help the economy.
In short, comprises have to be made, so the Third Party isn't seen as the party of the Hollywood Liberals, or other left wing groups.
There are enough principled Barry Goldwater/Reagan style Republicans who are disgusted by what has happened to their party who would jump shift to a third party, far more than would jump ship to the Democrats.
And most Democrats do seem to be disgusted enough with their present elected officials to be eager to support a more representative third party.
There are enough people in this country to make multiple small donations to one central national candidate-financing fund an enormous threat to the PAC Cash funding committees of Congress. That might just work to enable us to buy our way in to Congress, without party funding, with enough principled candidates to allow us to effect the remaining federal changes needed to return control of our legislature to the people.
Absolutely true. Beyond debate. When people are engaged in "labors of love", it's hard to underestimate how much energy they are willing to expend, and how much sacrifice they are willing to endure to accomplish a fervently desired goal.
And every dollar given to a Third Party, is a dollar someone is withholding from one of the other two parties.
ronnie said:
ReplyDeleteReal slowly: There is a difference between claiming that (a) the eavesdropping engaged in by the Administration is outside the scope of FISA, and (b) there is a legal justification for not obtaining FISA warrants even though the eavesdropping is within the parameters of FISA.
The Administration's position is (b), but not - as Glenn correctly stated - (a). They don't claim (a) and never have. God, you're stupid.
-----------------------------
That is not correct. Gonzalez claimed that the NSA program was both contitutional (inherent powers)and legal (under the AUMF)and used both a and b above. Remember, he said FISA was one of the tools they use --- not that everything they did fell under FISA.
In other words, as Marty points out, it renders legal the lawless NSA program and simply requires the FISA court to rubber-stamp its approval for the program every 45 days.
ReplyDeleteThat's what I've been expecting. Kind of like the illusory protections against torture that the McCain bill gives.
That is not correct. Gonzalez claimed that the NSA program was both contitutional (inherent powers)and legal (under the AUMF)and used both a and b above. Remember, he said FISA was one of the tools they use --- not that everything they did fell under FISA.
ReplyDeleteThe question is whether the eavesdropping is THE TYPE DESCRIBED AS NEEDING A FISA WARRANT BY THAT LAW.
The Administration admits that it is. The fact that they claim they have a FISA exemption from AUMF or that they have the inherent power to do this eavesdropping does not change the fact that the eavesdropping they did is of the type covered by FISA, as even the Administration admits.
They said that right in the 42 page DOJ letter they issued in January, which I'll bet my house you didn't read.
Why are we having to review NSA 101 issues from back in December for these moron cultists who have no idea what they're talking about?
Re: Glenn's comment about defeatism...
ReplyDeleteYes, ok, as far as it goes: defeatism isn't an accurate reaction when the electorate is divided 50/50. I agree with you, but you're overlooking a few things.
1. electronic voting machines. North Carolina Elections Board broke NC law coupla months back to illegally certify voting machines that didn't meet standards set in the legal code.
2. Eagerness of "centrist" DLC-Dems to apply milquetoast capitulation of every reasonable instinct in the service of the opportunity to compromise, rather than fight for, core American and Constitutional principles.
3. Arlen Specter & Company's inability to take Bush & the Administration at their word when they offer up theories of the "unitary executive," addled 'legal' "justifications" for torture, etc., etc.
They mean what they say. When Bush says "That's why I put Alito on the Court," HE DOES NOT MEAN "nominated." When Powell and Rumsfeld said "the President has not yet decided to go to war," THEY DID NOT MEAN he has not yet decided to seek Congressional approval (btw, he'd signed the Exec Order 3 weeks earlier; they were lying to Congress). They meant THE PRESIDENT decides.
When John Bolton, in the runup to war, said "the Germans should just shut up and follow orders," do you think he meant it? He meant exactly what he said. Think of the unmistakeable message sent to Germany, a sovereign, democratic nation: Nothing less than "You followed orders once, like Good Germans, and you'll follow orders again -- but this time -- we're giving the orders."
Kinda says it all. It HAS been the Bush policy. Shut up and follow orders, like good Germans.
So #3 is Republicans who can't see the writing on the wall. Though it is plain as day.
4. The media. We have Judith Iscariot Miller, Bob Woodward, Matt Cooper & John Dickerson knowingly printing falsehoods about Rove's 'noninvolvement' with the Plame deal, of course the multiple debacles of John Harris/ Deborah Howell / Jim Brady as they try to cover up the Republican-Abramhoff bribery & extortion -- and get nailed for it by the general public -- and finally..
.. the talk shows. Completely unbalanced for some time now, they've only had guests that push the conservative agenda of DC insiders. They've never had a full range of opinion on. They continue to have journalists who are known liars -- David Brooks, Michael Duffy, John Harris, Woodward, Cooper.
They spun the Clinton "crises" the way they wanted, and lacked principle as they did it.
They "balanced" 1 conservative Democrat with 3 Very Conservative Republicans for years.
This week -- Gwen Ifill had Mary Matalin on to talk about Cheney's aim with a shotgun -- but no one else. Meet the Press today: 3 Republicans -- NO Democrats.
5. No accountability whatsoever.
Even from the Judiciary -- a judge in Brooklyn threw out Maher Arar's lawsuit, based on his rendition to Syria. THAT speaks volumes about the state of our legal system. EVEN the judiciary can't figure out how to apply 230 years of American jurisprudence to allow adequate redress of heinous crimes committed by our government! Who the hell cares if he's a Canadian citizen or born in Syria!
That an American judge can participate in the degradation and dissolution and betrayal of American law and principle, surely entitles THE REALISTS AMONG US to understand that "When in the course of human events" has come round, once again...
Though I get what you're sayin.. . some Republicans have eyes, and a few Dems have actually done something ...
AL Gore gives me hope.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteronnie said:
ReplyDeleteReal slowly: There is a difference between claiming that (a) the eavesdropping engaged in by the Administration is outside the scope of FISA, and (b) there is a legal justification for not obtaining FISA warrants even though the eavesdropping is within the parameters of FISA.
The Administration's position is (b), but not - as Glenn correctly stated - (a). They don't claim (a) and never have. God, you're stupid.
ronnie, baby....
Bush has indeed claimed that eavesdropping is outside the scope of FISA. They've done so explicitly, openly, and vociferously. They've out-and-out claimed the Preznit had the power to eavesdrop, by a) virtue of the execrable "unitary executive" theory; and b) by claiming, erroneously, that Congress granted them that power when they greenlighted war on Iraq.
Note that the "unitary executive" theory amounts to elevating the President to King, unfettered by any check and balances. It is nothing less than a treasonous betrayal of every defining characteristic of the country.
I posted this elsewhere, but since several comments touched on the subject I figured I'd add it here, too:
ReplyDeleteIn The Ancestor's Tale, Richard Dawkins uses a cork in the Gulf Stream as a metaphor to describe the course of evolution.
At any given point that you view the cork, it may be seen to go one direction or the other, but if you scale back and look at the overall trajectory of the cork, you will see that the Gulf current is carrying it towards Europe.
That's sort of how I see American politics.At any given point, public opinion could shift in favor of one party or another, but overall we seem set on a specific course, a course that we've been on since post WW II.
That's why I'm pessimistic. I think the system is somewhat rigged, and as long as we continue to attempt to work within the confines of the two-party duopoly nothing significant will change.
I believe that real reform will take structural changes that open up the election process to third parties and which stops the lobbying madness.
They've out-and-out claimed the Preznit had the power to eavesdrop, by a) virtue of the execrable "unitary executive" theory; and b) by claiming, erroneously, that Congress granted them that power when they greenlighted war on Iraq.
ReplyDeleteThese are arguments as to why the Administration has a legal justification to eavesdrop without FISA warrants even though the eavesdropping is the type FISA requires a warrant for.
Glenn's statement was about whether the eavesdropping they were doing is the type described by FISA. THey admit it is. They claim that they don't need warrants because the AUMF gave them an exemption -- not because the eavesdropping doesn't fall within the scope of FISA.
Are you people being dense on purpose? This is a matter of basic logic.
THey admit it is.
ReplyDeleteNo, they don't. You can beat this dead horse until you're gasping for breath and blue in the face, but the administration has not "admitted" that the type of surveillance undertaken under the NSA program was "the type the FISA requires a warrant for."
This has been explained to you a number of times, and you don't seem capable of grasping it. As such, it's quite clear that your tendency to label your opponents as "dense" and "stupid" because they don't see things your way is, well...let's just say it's unwise and leave it at that.
Ronnie is absolutely right, and I applaud his patience in trying to explain basic truths to people who have no interest (and, in some cases here, no capacity) to actually know what legal positions the Administration has actually taken.
ReplyDeleteFrom the beginning of this scandal, the Administration has conceded that the eavesdropping it did as part of this program is within the parameters of FISA.
That's why they needed an Executive Order authorizing warrantless eavesdropping outside of FISA - and it's why they needed to claim that they had an exemption from FISA in the AUMF -- precisely because FISA, in the absence of such an Order, requires a warrant. They wouldn't need an exemption from FISA in the AUMF unless FISA covered the eavesdropping they were doing. That's just a fact - a matter, as Ronnie said, of basic logic -- that is not subject to reasonable debate, and one can contest that fact only by being unfamiliar with everything the DoJ has said in defense of the NSA program.
Ronnie speculated - I'm sure correctly - that people who don't realize that the Administration conceded this never read any of the DoJ's positions on this scandal. If they had, they would know this about the January 19, 2006 DoJ position paper (from a prior post of mine):
The DoJ specifically acknowledges that FISA is "generally applicable to the interception of communications in the United States" (p. 2), and "it is assumed for purposes of this paper that the activities described by the President constitute ‘electronic surveillance’ as defined by FISA, 50 U.S.C. section 1801(f)" (p. 17, fn 5).
Although the Letter claims that it is operating on this assumption in order to avoid the disclosure of classified information about the eavesdropping program, the DoJ could easily assert that it believes the eavesdropping complied with the mandates of FISA but that it is incapable of describing why this is so without disclosing classified information. But unlike Bush’s most slavish followers, the DoJ has never taken the position that its eavesdropping was permitted within the parameters of FISA. To the contrary, in this Letter, the DoJ refers to "[t]he President’s determination that electronic surveillance of al Qaeda outside the confines of FISA was ‘necessary and appropriate.’" (p. 36, fn. 21).
FISA does not apply to all eavesdropping, only certain types of eavesdropping specified by the statute. If the eavesdropping the Administration engaged in didn't fall within the scope of the statute, there would be no issue. Not even the Administration claims this. Being dreadfully misinformed is the only way not to realize that.
Here are a few observations from my first reading of the proposed Specter amendment of FISA.
ReplyDeleteIn a nut shell, the revised FISA requires the President through the AG to submit the entire NSA program to review by the FISA court with an affidavit laying out the means and methods of collection being used and the results of that collection over the prior 135 days. Such an affidavit could be hundreds of pages long.
I don't see how the President will agree to this requirement because the affidavit would be incredibly onerous to create every 45 days.
Also, I doubt that the President wants to disclose the actual intelligence collection of one of the most sensitive programs in the intelligence community through Justice and the FISA court every 45 days. There have already been multiple leaks and this exposes the program to far more people. A large number of attorneys at Justice would need access to the intelligence collected just to draft this enormous affidavit. The FISA court would then need far more judges or legal assistants to read this beast in time to issue approvals within the time period required.
Then Congress authorizes the FISA court to approve continuation of the NSA program if it finds the program to be Constitutional AND if the President can provide "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."
Because the case law over the past quarter century has all held that the 4th Amendment does not apply to the collection of intelligence against foreign groups or their agents in the United States, the FISA court would appear to be bound to find the NSA Program as described by the leakers to be constitutional.
This proposed probable cause standard is very interesting and needs further study. However, on first reading, Specter appears to have created a large loophole in what used to be an impossible standard under FISA.
As I posted before, the mere fact that al Qeada possessed a telephone number which we later captured is not probable cause that the user of that number is an al Qaeda agent.
However, the Specter bill adds the following phrase onto the old FISA standard: "probable cause to believe that the electronic surveillance program will intercept communications of...a person who has had communication with the foreign power or agent of a foreign power specified in the application."
This phrase looks wide enough to drive the NSA program through without tapping on the brakes.
If you capture a telephone number from al Qeada, you very arguably have probable cause that the person using that number is al Qeada or is someone unrelated to al Qaeda who in communication with them.
Even so, I doubt the President will agree to waive his Article II authority and submit it to the approval of the FISA court, even if this current NSA program would most likely come through unaffected.
The White House has already agreed in principle to support Senator DeWine's bill which removes this program from FISA and submits it to Congressional oversight where it belongs. There is very little in Senator Specter's bill which is likely to attract WH support.
From the beginning of this scandal, the Administration has conceded that the eavesdropping it did as part of this program is within the parameters of FISA.
ReplyDeleteThe NSA program is, of course, not a "scandal." No one calls it a scandal except hate-Bush blogs.
The administration has not conceded this. As Roger Pilon wrote in a letter to the WSJ:
[The] In re: Sealed Case Cit[ed] an earlier case called Troung that dealt with pre-FISA surveillance based on "the President's constitutional responsibility to conduct the foreign affairs of the United States," the court said: "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
This was the argument the administration made to the Court of Review: "FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power." The NSA program was outside the purview of FISA.
This is why Specter and others are attempting to modify FISA...they understand FISA does not apply here, and are trying, vainly I believe, to extend congressional power over executive authority.
I post the article below to illustrate a point. Paul Craig Roberts was Mr. Republican, Asst. Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan, an architect of supply side economics, an editor of the (then) Wall Street Journal, and a person who was as firmly in the Republican camp as anyone. When the Patriot Act was passed, and when we invaded Iraq, he turned on a dime and became, in my view, one of the few most eloquent and passionate critics of the policies of the Bush regime. I will post more about him later, but the reason I am posting this now is because I fear that unless we force ourselves to be prescient in the way Paul Craig Roberts was even before the Iraq invasion turned into a disaster, to leave whatever party loyalty we each have behind in favor of speaking truth to power, we may find ourselves in even bigger trouble than we are now. We cannot allow this country to go ahead with its plans to initiate military force against Iran.
ReplyDelete\
Viet Dinh vs. Paul Craig Roberts
Viet Dinh's Letter:
"Dear Mr. Roberts,
I write as a bewildered fan. A fan because I truly admire your past service to our nation as a government official and your past contributions to our intellectual culture. Bewildered because your recent posting on LewRockwell.com compares America’s defense against terrorism to Nazi Germany and because, even more inexplicably, your opinion appears to be based on total fiction.
I woke up this last Saturday to the following message on my email:
'Last week's annual Conservative Political Action Conference signaled the transformation of American conservatism into brownshirtism. A former Justice Department official named Viet Dinh got a standing ovation when he told the CPAC audience that the rule of law mustn't get in the way of President Bush protecting Americans from Osama bin Laden' Paul Craig Roberts
If you are so enamored with totalitarianism, maybe you ought to return to your ancestral home.
I resisted the temptation to dismiss the message as another bigoted attack and asked for a source citation to what I assumed to be a made-up quotation. No reply. So I researched and to my surprise discovered that the cowardly email had indeed quoted your post on LewRockwell.com.
As it is obvious that you are writing without any first-hand knowledge of the facts, let me be very clear about what was said and what was not said. I did not, nor did anyone at CPAC to my knowledge, say that "the rule of law mustn't get in the way of President Bush protecting Americans from Osama bin Laden." Nor was there any standing ovation. I would have thought, before your post, that an accusation against an individual, an entire audience, and indeed a nation’s anti-terror strategy of being akin to Nazism would require a bit more responsibility to the facts.
Assuming some fealty to the truth remains, let me recount what I said during my debate with Bob Barr at CPAC. I acknowledged that conservatism derives from a tradition of healthy skepticism of governmental power. However, I said, "At times that healthy skepticism must unfortunately yield to a greater threat to our national security." I posit that the question is not whether the President is above the law but rather whether anyone, including Congress, is above the Constitution, and specifically noted that "no one without operational knowledge of the details of the NSA program can come to a definitive conclusion as to its propriety or legality."
Finally, I concluded, "At this time, the greatest threat to American liberty comes from al Qaeda and its associates who would seek to destroy this nation, not from the brave men and women who defend America and her people."
If you disagree with any of the above points, I would love to engage you in a conversation. If you were there and differ in your recollection, I would ask to see your notes or better, that you check your facts with Bob Barr. If you were not at CPAC and did not observe that which you purported to describe, I hope you will come clean.
But nothing – nothing, sir – justifies your spurious accusation of "brownshirtism" against anyone, least of all against one who has suffered the tyranny of totalitarianism.
Thank you.
Viet D. Dinh"
-------------
Paul Craig Roberts's Response
I stand by my characterization of Viet Dinh’s remarks in his debate with Bob Barr at the recent CPAC annual meeting and by my statement that conservatism has morphed into brownshirtism.
Viet Dinh is one of the authors of the so-called "PATRIOT Act," an anti-American piece of legislation recognized throughout the civil libertarian community as an assault on American civil liberties. Former Republican congressman Bob Barr has fought to restrain the act’s more egregious intrusions into the constitutionally protected privacy of American citizens.
Even Republican US senators, such as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, are concerned about the Bush regime’s proclivity for warrantless spying in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Senator Specter is drafting legislation with which he hopes to curtail President Bush’s illegal activity. As far as I can tell, the legal community recognizes that Bush’s warrantless spying is illegal, except for members of the Republican Federalist Society, a group of lawyers dedicated to concentrating unaccountable powers in the executive.
There are several news reports on the CPAC conference and the debate between Bob Barr and Viet Dinh. My observations follow from these news reports.
Writing in the Washington Post on February 11, "Bob Barr, Bane of the Right?," Post reporter Dana Milbank, for example, reports that Barr asked the CPAC audience, "Are we losing our lodestar, which is the Bill of Rights" to the Bush regime’s zeal in its war against terror?
Barr confronted the conservatives: "Do we truly remain a society that believes that every president must abide by the law of this country" or "are we in danger of putting allegiance to party ahead of allegiance to principle?"
Barr’s questions were greeted with silence followed by booing. According to Milbank, "Dinh brought the crowd to a raucous ovation when he judged: ‘The threat to Americans’ liberty today comes from al Qaeda and its associates and the people who would destroy America and her people, not the brave men and women who work to defend this country!’"
How else are we to interpret Viet Dinh’s words? Clearly, he is saying that it is more important for Bush to seize powers to protect America from Osama bin Laden than to obey the law and abide by the separation of powers. The entire position of the Bush regime is that protecting the country from terrorists is more important than loyalty to habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions, the proscription against torture, open government, and an accountable executive.
Dinh himself endorsed the Führer Principle and urged it upon the conservatives when he declared, "The conservative movement has a healthy skepticism of governmental power, but at times, unfortunately, that healthy skepticism needs to yield." Yield to what? To the Leader who works "to defend this country."
That’s exactly what Hitler said following the Reichstag fire, a staged incident that he used to remove himself from accountability.
Milbank notes that by turning the debate into the issue of who do you fear – George Bush or Osama bin Laden, Viet Dinh employed "the sort of tactic that has intimidated Democrats and the last few libertarian Republicans who question the program’s legality."
Milbank reports that Viet Dinh’s tactic did not work on Bob Barr who nailed Dinh: "That, folks, was a red herring. This debate is very simple: It is a debate about whether or not we will remain a nation subject to and governed by the rule of law or the whim of men."
In fairness to Viet Dinh, coming as he does as an immigrant from a country without a constitutional tradition, without a Bill of Rights, and without a judiciary empowered to enforce civil liberties, Dinh may only naturally confuse patriotism with loyalty to leader. Trust the Leader, Dinh told the conservatives. They seemed to agree. This certainly is not America’s way.
Destroying America does not mean blowing up buildings. It means destroying the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the separation of powers. Al Qaeda is powerless to bring about such destruction. Only our own government, enabled by the public’s and Viet Dinh’s and Attorney General Gonzales’ endorsements of the Führer Principle can destroy America.
February 23, 2006
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteI read the Specter amendment to FISA, and I'd say you're right about it. I should point out that I'm not a lawyer, but I've done some data mining in my time.
The "old" FISA, IOW, the current law, attempts to define how and under what circumstances a U.S. citizen or resident can be tapped. It also defines how the data should be handled - as in, it says you can't keep the data you've collected if there's no warrant.
The Specter amendment doesn't appear to do that. It seems to leave up to judges whether the DoD's proposed listening programs conform to the law, and if they're handling data correctly. It doesn't define any limits on this, that I can see, and I didn't see it refer to the other sections of FISA as guidance.
My eyes were starting to glaze over trying to read that crappily formatted document, so I might have missed something.
Like I said, I've done some data mining, and I know that if you don't handle the data correctly, you can end up with a roomful of tapes and DVDs that say things like "Stuff: Jan. 10-12" on them. If they're going to make an amendment to FISA that somehow permits data mining or blind surveillance, I think they need to do better.
This was the argument the administration made to the Court of Review: "FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power." The NSA program was outside the purview of FISA.
ReplyDeleteGedalyia is incapable of understanding the difference between (a) activity being within the scope of a statute and (b) a legal argument as to why the statute doesn't have to be complied with. That is amazing.
It is interesting how there are many pro-Bush supporters here, yet only Gedalyia is routinely referred to as stupid. The people at this blog have a high tolerance for political diversity, but very little tolernace for stupidity and ignornace.
Hopefully, Gedaylia will start to wonder why it is that his intellect is so commonly attacked here, whereas other Bush supporters aren't, and start to think about whether there are other blogs more suited for his level (such as FreeRepublic or some of the usenet boards).
Kind of like the illusory protections against torture that the McCain bill gives.
ReplyDeleteExactly. And this is one of the most vicious examples of exploiting a moral issue for personal gain. McCain never said a peep after Bush attached his signing statement to the torture bill. He was too busy getting Bush's lists of addresses of his Christian Conservative Base so he could solicit funds from them.
McCain is not the solution. Not by a long, long, long shot.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteMy emphasis would differ from yours.
It's not that I disagree with what you've said, specifically. Does this law deal with Bush breaking the law by passing the same law over again? Yes. Is it weak? Yes. But this is a Republican-controlled Senate, and it will never publicly admit that Bush broke the law unless it is forced to. It will choose between attempting to rectify the injustice as quietly and friendly-like as possible while pretending everyone's really on the same side about it, or not attempting to rectify it at all, but just endorse it.
DeWine's putrid bill legalizes and endorses Bush's behavior. Specter's law at least makes it illegal again.
More specifically, Specter's law requires DoJ to give evidenced that the people being tapped are either agents of a foreign power, or talking to people for whom there's evidence that they are agents of a foreign power. If the law is followed and FISA does their job, this means GWB can't spy on journalists and Kossacks. It means he can't mass-surveil millions of people at once for any subversive activity and compile their info in a big database to rot there until every other federal agency in the world decides to root through it for their own purposes. It, essentially, makes a good-faith attempt to close the loophole.
This doesn't mean we should stop our full-court press for hearings. If nothing else, they increase the chances of hearings happening if the Democrats capture a house in 2006.
But I'll give Specter half a credit for, at least, being less craven than DeWine.
In an imperfect world, I'd rather have this draft than something else, to be honest. Congress has the power to grant legislation that essentially immunizes the president and his program forever. That's a lot worse, and we're unlikely to top it.
Bart, I parse your statement as follows:
ReplyDeleteYou claim:
#1. This law makes it possible to do things that couldn't be done under FISA.
#2. That it creates horrible, crippling administrative costs of having to write affdavits for FISA.
#3. That it risks substantive intel leaks to Al-Quieda.
#4. That the white house will attempt to reject it.
I can agree with you only on the last one. But it doesn't matter what the White House would like to reject. When Congress passes a law, it's the law. You have no choice but to obey it unless a different one is passed or unless a competent court throws it out.
Do we agree on the above - the basic rule of law in this country?
It's humiliating that I have to set the terms of the debate as low as : Is the law the law? Is the president allowed to break the law? No, right? But, hey, whatever it takes.
As for #1, #2, and #3:
#1. Quite frankly, I don't buy that this couldn't be done before, under FISA.
#2. You, personally, believe that what this law describes is what FISA is doing - only wiretapping people who we have evidence are foreign agents, or people who are talking to them. I don't believe that. But if that's all the NSA program was doing:
- the key word is "evidence" - and yes, a phone number on a Quieda telephone could be evidence, but no,
having ever spoken to an Arab who worked in the same building as another arab who was brother to an arab who worked in a charity that sent money to... some people who have sent some money to Al-Quieda supporters is NOT evidence-
If that's all the NSA program was doing, I wouldn't have opposed it in the first place.
I don't believe that that's what the program was doing, or there would have been no reason to skip FISA in the first place.
Your reasons #2 and #3 are, quite franly, offensive and silly, in that order. The administrative cost burden is insulting. This is the federal government we're talking about - it produces 800 page documents the way you produce blog posts - having to create a paper trail about their wiretapping of US citizens is not undue burden to the entire fricking department of justice. That argument is, "I broke the law, because the paperwork is a pain in the ass."
#3 is silly. There's no evidence that any sensitive or specific operational data has ever been leaked to Al-Quieda. How many predator strikes have we conducted in the past 4 years? We don't even know. If Al-Quieda was being tipped off about them all, how come we've supposedly been hitting our targets?
If we've disrupted six, or however many, attacks in the US since 2001, how many of them were leaked again? Remember that a vast majority of all the approaches to these investigations used FISA. We know that, because we've been told that the non-FISA leaks were essentially worthless.
So, if sensitive intel was being leaked to Al-Quieda every time we used the courts, shouldn't we be reeling from successful Al-Quieda strikes all across the nation?
Having said that, to strike a positive note, I could surmise that you'd find this law minimally acceptable. So would I. If the NSA program was only hitting people we had evidence were quieda or only-once removed from quieda, it could continue. If it was tapping everyone in the same neighborhood or anyone convenient, it would stop.
It's not justice, because Bush isn't being indicted for violating the civil liberties of US citizens without legal permission, but it is an improvement.
Gedaliya, do you still believe there were WMD in Iraq or that we are there to spread Democracy?
ReplyDeleteYes to either one or any answer that does not explicitly say no would indicate that you are a fool or a liar.
Your continual apologies for Bush and his accomplices, while entertaining for the perverse and tortuous (there's that word they want us to forget) logic that Bush supporters have to continually use, have become boring and tedious. If I want to listen to a liar I'll listen to the master, or one of his spokesmen, himself. (That'd be W just in case you can't figure it out).
Even before Bush issued his signing statement on McCain's anti-torture bill it was toothless because of the Graham-Levin Amendment.
ReplyDeleteglasnost said...
ReplyDeleteBart, I parse your statement as follows:
You claim:
#1. This law makes it possible to do things that couldn't be done under FISA.
Quite frankly, I don't buy that this couldn't be done before, under FISA.
OK, go find me any case law that finds probable cause to wiretap a telephone number merely because a criminal possessed that number.
#2. That it creates horrible, crippling administrative costs of having to write affdavits for FISA.
You, personally, believe that what this law describes is what FISA is doing - only wiretapping people who we have evidence are foreign agents, or people who are talking to them. I don't believe that.
What you believe is irrelevant. You are accusing the President of the United States of criminal wrongdoing. Put up some evidence or shut up. Your fantasies are a waste of my time.
The administrative cost burden is insulting. This is the federal government we're talking about - it produces 800 page documents the way you produce blog posts - having to create a paper trail about their wiretapping of US citizens is not undue burden to the entire fricking department of justice. That argument is, "I broke the law, because the paperwork is a pain in the ass."
Nonsense.
Have you ever put together a complex affidavit, nevertheless one which could conceivably require detailing 135 days worth of surveillance on over 1000-5000 numbers? I sincerely doubt it. You would need a team of a couple dozen attorneys going through all the raw intelligence data and then boiling it down to something a judge could read in something less than a month.
This is not a matter of money. Its a matter of manpower and compromising operational security with each additional person you make privy to the intelligence data. You already have has leaks from inside the CIA blowing the cover for this program and then multiple judges on the FISA court violating their code of ethics by speaking with the press about how they would rule on a program which they knew nothing about. If I am the President, I'll be damned if I am going to expose the nation's most sensitive intelligence to a few dozen lawyers for them each personally to decide whether they feel the information should remain classified.
Having said that, to strike a positive note, I could surmise that you'd find this law minimally acceptable.
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.
It's not justice, because Bush isn't being indicted for violating the civil liberties of US citizens without legal permission, but it is an improvement.
You find me one instance of this program being abused.
OK, Ronnie, here is the summary and conclusion from Pages 41-42 of the DOJ letter.
ReplyDeleteThe letter says the activities did not violate FISA nor the constitution. That sure as hell does not mean that they claim all activities were under FISA. They simply claim that all the activities "violate neither FISA nor the Fourth Amendment."
Apparently neither you nor Glenn have "the capacity" to understand that this does not mean all the acitivities were under FISA. There was no concession whatsover that all activities were under FISA, simply that whatever the DOJ contrued FISA covered, they did not feel they violated it. Geez, I thought you guys were lawyers.
Pages 41-42:
In sum, the NSA activities are consistent with the Fourth Amendment because the warrant requirement does not apply in these circumstances, which involve both “special needs” beyond the need for ordinary law enforcement and the inherent authority of the President to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence to protect our Nation from foreign armed attack. The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness, and the NSA activities are certainly reasonable, particularly taking into account the nature of the threat the Nation faces.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the President—in light of the broad authority to use military force in response to the attacks of September 11th and to prevent further catastrophic attack expressly conferred on the President by the Constitution and confirmed and supplemented by
For the foregoing reasons, the President—in light of the broad authority to use military force in response to the attacks of September 11th and to prevent further catastrophic attack expressly conferred on the President by the Constitution and confirmed and supplemented by
Congress in the AUMF—has legal authority to authorize the NSA to conduct the signals intelligence activities he has described. Those activities are authorized by the Constitution and by statute, and they violate neither FISA nor the Fourth Amendment.
The confusion Gedaliya seems to be having is one of basic understanding of the meaning of words. The sense in which gedaliya claims NSA is outside the purview of FISA is just a way of saying the administration claims it doesn't apply so they dont have to obey it. This is a different thing from whether the activity the administration is conducting falls under FISA. In asking whether the activity falls under FISA, one is just asking if, whether FISA ends up applying or not, the activity would be covered if FISA did apply. By the very definitions in FISA, the activity of NSA eavesdropping is covered by it. The administartions claim that it doesn't have to obey it can, I guess, be stated as saying the activity falls outside the purview of FISA, but its a whole 'nother point.
ReplyDeleteThis is pretty typical righty tactics. Confuse and conflate. I"ll assume gedaliya is not stupid, but that means s/he is purposely trying to obfuscate. Which is worse?
Anon said:
ReplyDeleteThe letter says the activities did not violate FISA nor the constitution. That sure as hell does not mean that they claim all activities were under FISA. They simply claim that all the activities "violate neither FISA nor the Fourth Amendment."
Apparently neither you nor Glenn have "the capacity" to understand that this does not mean all the acitivities were under FISA. There was no concession whatsover that all activities were under FISA, simply that whatever the DOJ contrued FISA covered, they did not feel they violated it. Geez, I thought you guys were lawyers.
Same as Gedaliya. That's just confused. If you don't see what the difference is, I don't think you're ready to discuss this meanigfully.
Wow, I came across this article by L. Neil Smith talking about the same thing many of us have been discussing here today. Maybe this is an idea whose time has come? Glenn, you have to read this, because in a roundabout way, it touches on the work you are doing:
ReplyDeleteIf it isn't George Bush with his boot on your neck after 2008—if George isn't there any more to steal half of everything you make, and enslave your kids for military and other purposes, and dog your steps, and lowjack your phone, and read your mail, and ransack your medical records, and censor your radio and television, and search your home, and probe your bunghole—it'll be Hillary.
Or somebody just like her.
Neither of these phony antagonists will offer not to do any of those evil things. Instead, they're competing on the basis of who can deprive us all of more of our rights faster. Standing on the shoulders of would-be tyrants like Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, and Johnson, Bill Clinton did his damnedable best to make the state stronger and more unaccountable to the people. George Bush stands on Clinton's shoulders today.
Any "progress" made by Republicans in converting America into a dictatorship will be absorbed by the next Democratic administration before they go on to make "progress" of their own. The "no-fly" list will become the "no-ride" list, then the "no-drive" list, then the "no-walk" list, and finally the "no-breathe" list. Why anybody should think that it matters which wing of the Boot on Your Neck Party is doing it to us at any given moment is—and always has been—beyond me.
We already know that if the media cover both wings of the Boot On Your Neck Party they will claim that they're covering all possible political alternatives. They'd rather send a reporter and a cameraman to a local dog show and air the resulting tape in three-hour segments than treat anyone who's dissatisfied with politics-as-they-are with any more dignity than they do the attendees at a science fiction convention.
Is there any hope left? Can anything be done? I think so, but watch out, because I've been wrong before. I think a national organization, with local affiliates, dedicated to dis-electing politicians, aiming at an eventual hundred year moratorium on further legislation of any kind (except for repeals), might just stand a chance.
I call it the Impeachment Party.
Such an organization wouldn't steal half of everything you make. It wouldn't enslave your kids for military and other purposes. It wouldn't dog your steps. It wouldn't lowjack your phone. It wouldn't read your mail. It wouldn't ransack your medical records. It wouldn't censor your radio and television. It wouldn't search your home. And it wouldn't probe your bunghole—because it wouldn't run candidates who believed they had something to gain by advancing idiotic policies like that.
In fact, the Impeachment Party wouldn't run candidates at all. Instead it would work, full time, to see the Bill of Rights enforced, to repeal laws contradicting it, to remove politicians violating it, and to stop, for a century, adding to millions of laws that already exist.
I've said before, many times, that to put an end to war, we must end taxation, end conscription, disarm the government, and arm the people.
The Impeachment Party would be a good start.
I'll give it one more try. Put aside for a moment whether the POTUS thinks he has to obey FISA. Even he doesn't dispute that FISA, whether or not it ends up applying, does indeed cover the stuff he's doing. It does cover it. Read it. This is not the same thing as asking if its good law. Even if I assume you're right and Bush can ignore FISA in the end (which will never happen if an actual court ever gets involved) it doesn't mean this stuff wasn't covered by FISA. Geez people.
ReplyDeleteWhich is worse?
ReplyDeleteWell, since you asked...
I'd say it would be hanging your hat on a silly and irrelevant rhetorical construction that in the political arena is embraced only by the obsessed and obsolete. The game has moved far beyond this childish "scandal" scenario that the hate-Bush left still clings to like a security blanket. The real question for the congressional branch is one of saving face...that is, how to ameliorate the fact that the legislative branch is being rendered impotent by the exigencies of a commander-in-chief exercising his Article II powers to confront a mortal enemy.
A smart guy like Glenn knows this quite well. It's too bad he's so concerned with making a splash in the "blogosphere." In past days he might have instead taken a principled position in defense of the executive, especially since he knows quite well that this struggle will determine whether or not our society and culture will survive.
Who, whom....
Even he doesn't dispute that FISA, whether or not it ends up applying, does indeed cover the stuff he's doing. It does cover it. Read it.
ReplyDeleteIf it covered the stuff he was doing he wouldn't do it. It doesn't, so he he does it.
Get it?
It's probably time to check the sheets, Gedaliya. Looks like you wet the bed again.
ReplyDeleteBy "principled", you must mean "let good old cowboy George Dubya do whatever he wants to with no regard for the law so he can protect me from the big bad turrists."
Wow! I get it now.
ReplyDeleteGeorge Bush is the perfect leader; therefore it's inconceivable that he might do anything wrong, like break the law; therefore, his activities must not have been in violation of FISA. Never mind the actual text of the law or anything...George Bush IS the law!
What have I been reading all these big words around here for? It's as clear as day! Thanks, Gedaliya!
http://cryptome.org/gonzales020606.htm
ReplyDeleteRead AG Gonzales's statement for yourself. Nowhere does it concede that the administration says all the activities fall under FISA. In fact, he goes in to great detail to explain the Terrorist Surveillance Program does NOT fall under FISA.
"The critical advantage offered by the terrorist surveillance program compared to FISA is who makes the probable cause determination and how many layers of review must occur before surveillance begins."
Does this sound like he thinks the program is under FISA?
"I have already discussed, the AUMF provides the relevant statutory authorization for the terrorist surveillance program. Hamdi makes clear that the broad language in the AUMF can satisfy a requirement for specific statutory authorization set forth in another law."
They are claiming the Terrorist Surveillance Program has legal as in legislative legal from the AUMF, NOT FISA.
The claim that the administration has conceded that all activities were within FISA is bogus.
Anon Said: There is simply no sense of shared outrage, based on principle, to bind the various groups who are expressing discontent. It's as if "outrage" has become localized, focused on this or that issue, this or that person, this or that abuse, but there is not a cohesive, clearly stated, effectively directed, nationally agreed upon outrage at the whole corrupt system.
ReplyDeleteFollowing that statement, Anonymous stated the cohesive, clearly stated, effectively directed, nationally agreed upon outrage at the whole corrupt system: Portgate.
Something extraordinary has been revealed with this port deal that we should, as Glenn has done, tie to the NSA spying scandal (and yes, its a scandal). A huge majority of Americans are mad about the port situation. They are not mad about its national security implications as Congress and the media types would have you believe. They are not mad about the ports because of anti-Arab bias as Friedmen and his ilk would have you believe. They are mad because they don't want their ports sold to any company/country outside the US. This port deal has ripped off the whole CAFTA, NAFTA, "free trade", globalization, outsourcing of American jobs, right direction/wrong direction scab.
If progressives, liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Independents, and Republicans want something better, we have to begin to call the phenomenon that has overtaken our country and its media what it is: Corporatism. And the life blood of corporatism is not campaign contributions, it's consumer spending. (At some point, we have to construct a matrix to be shared with our fellow progressives. The matrix should be a blue print for principled spending on our part; i.e. the old fashioned boycott.)
I read once (and have no idea where) that there are only about 180 people who actually run the corporate boards that control the megacorporations. It's an incestuous bunch with one board's directors serving on another's.
Where does this group live in DC? It's representative is the US Chamber of Commerce. (BTW, did anyone see via Think Progress, where that illustrious group has now endorsed Tom DeLay in 2006).
There truly is only one national political figure that is talking about any of this to include the corporatization of the media and that is Al Gore. Reading his speeches is like reading a manifesto for good governance.
Portgate has put blood in the water on corporatism, the NSA scandal on the other hand touches on something different. Americans don't know what that something is as yet, but they have their doubts. The NSA thing like Portgage is not about national security and its not about "civil liberties". No, its about something seamier afoot with the corporatist. Some of you smart folks figure it out.
Anonymous, I don't know who this L. Neil Smith is (I can google him, of course*) but his list of tyrants is daft. Wilson? Lincoln??
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what his beef against Wilson is (the League of Nations, I guess), but anyone who calls Lincoln a tyrant has got to be an unreconstructed Confederate. (If he's referring to Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, he's barking up the wrong lynching tree: the US Constitution specifically allows suspension of habeas corpus in event of "invasion or insurrection." The South was insurrecting.)
*According to wiki, Smith is a Libertarian-Anarchist. At least, that's the flag he flies under. But he's written an alternative-history series in which the Confederacy won the Civil War, and which seems to indicate a wish that it had. Since I doubt it's possible to be a Libertarian and condone slavery, I stand by my earlier comment: the guy is a Confederate, if not a feudalist, and "Libertarian-Anarchist" is a flag of convenience.
To me, that completely robs his opinions of moral/intellectual credibility.
Why anyone takes spector, an major playing in the biggest cover-up in the 20th century serious on NSA is beyond me.
ReplyDeleteHe has shown who he takes orders from -- most American's no longer accept the conclusions of the Warren report which was built on his "Single/Magic" bullet theory.
Trolls may come by and proclaim that it is based on fact -- a rational review of facts, available evidence, and "experts" proves otherwise.
Why does anyone even want to waste time talking about Spector being part of some "meaningful" legistlation.
Get a clue gang and please leave the trolls alone.
We know they are not part of chimpy's super-rich base. We can speculate if they are morons or just sprewing talking points performing their roles as shills.
Don't understand why people don't find something more constructive to do than respond -- hell, you can engage in mindless "chat" all day via yahoo. Why bother coming here to "debate" the regular trolls?
Doesn't really reflect well on the intellegence of the folks that try to "refute" the nonsense ya know...
Simon Says
ReplyDeleteActually, Specter's bill cures a very important defect in the original FISA. A thorough review of that staute reveals that nowhere does it say, "Simon says...". It is therefore understandable that this President didn't think that the Congress was serious in 1978 in saying he couldn't wiretap at will. Adding the requisite Simon Says language at key junctures to the old FISA text should cure that problem.
Of course, to prevent future lawless wiretpapping, perhaps we would also need an amendment that prevents the President from saying, "Olly, olly, in free!" to retroactively legalize any otherwise illegal administration actions. Someone needs to look into this to insure that we have all our bases covered on the new FISA.
Since I doubt it's possible to be a Libertarian and condone slavery
ReplyDeleteSo isn't the best "conclusion" to make that this is just another of the lying liars?
What possible constructive purpose could it be to try to fit this "square peg" into another hole?
Inconsistent, obnoxious jerks that change their stories to fit their agenda don't need a multitude of shifting labels as if their views are somehow "validated."
They are just lying liars.
Uh oh. Glenn is right to be alarmed about this Specter bill. Marty Lederman (another one of my new heroes, along with Glenn) has a long discussion today on Balziniztion.com (a must read)in which he links to Glenn's post and discusses Glenn's argument.
ReplyDeleteMarty says his thoughts are tentative, as he has to study the proposal further, but he feels that it's even worse than what Glenn writes.
He in essense says Specter's proposal just about means that if you live in the United States, and you breathe, the government can tap your phone and do surveillance on you forever, for any reason, with no restraints. He said this proposal is a GIANT step backwards, making it far easier for the government to engage in limitless surveillance than it already is.
I imagine Glenn and Marty will debate this and come to a meeting of the minds.
Here's an excerpt:
As Glenn describes it, reading of the Specter bill "is somewhat like hearing that a life-long, chronic bank-robber got arrested for robbing a bank over the weekend and, in response, a Senator introduces legislation to make it a crime to rob banks." I don't think that's quite right -- in fact, it's like hearing that a lifelong, chronic bankrobber was arrested for robbing a bank over the weekend and, in response, a Senator introduces legislation to make it lawful to rob banks. (Well, with all respect to Glenn, the bank-robbing analogy isn't the best, because the conduct in question here is not as inherently wrongful as grand theft. But the Specter initiative does respond to wanton illegality with a bill to make the conduct lawful.)
I do feel a little more comfortable tonight, thinking that when two powerful minds get together, the chance they will have an impact on what happens increases.
Regarding Specter and DeWine and other traitors, I think I'll start scouting around on Ebay for used guillotine machines, so I can corner the market. They'll no doubt command a pretty penny when the impeachment and indictment festivities start.
ReplyDeleteMarty Lederman:
ReplyDeleteUnder that bill, it would not be necessary for the NSA to show that either party to an intercepted phone call or e-mail has anything to do with Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization. It would not even be necessary for the government to show probable cause -- or reason to believe, or any evidence -- that etiher party to the call or e-mail is a foreign power, an agent of a foreign power, or even associated with a foreign power.
YIKES.
Gedaliya said:
ReplyDeleteIf it covered the stuff he was doing he wouldn't do it. It doesn't, so he he does it.
Get it?
Wow. You really are confused by this. I assumed you got it but were just being hard-headed. But you really don't get it. At least you don't know enough to have to suffer the embarrassment that you would if you realized how ignorant you've shown yourself to be. Must be the same bliss W feels.
Love the post about the boycott. That's inventive. I am a firm believer that Portgage is a shorthand for everything that is wrong now, and should be used to start the elimination process. It's more immediate than NSA, but that's the other battlefront we need to occupy.
ReplyDeleteWhen complex issues have a "gut", "doesn't pass the smell test" aspect to them, those are the issues which engage the masses who do not follow the specifics.
We who do have to ride that wave of public protest.
And I agree, please don't feed the trolls. It's so counterproductive, and makes everyone have less respect for those who engage them.
Just scroll by. There's nothing worth reading in what they say.
If Howard Stern paid people by the hour to come here and disrupt things, would we really bother to respond to them?
L. Neil Smith is a columnist at lewrockwell.com. You can check out his other articles. I don't know him and posted an excerpt here because I liked that article.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, I am sure he is not for slavery. You cannot be a libertarian and in endorse any form of slavery, even the type of slavery in which we now all find ourselves: slaves to an Imperial, Lawless Presidency and the corrupt cabal which props up the puppet.
Finally, private enterprise is to be applauded. The problem with "corporatism" is that it appears the big corporations have become the Fifth Estate, a branch of government. They enable big government, and big governement enables them. The exact opposite of capitalistic free enterprise. Maybe they were forced into that posture by the government, but however they got there, that's where we are now.
I am sure he's not against Abraham Lincoln, although maybe he objects to an action Lincoln took. Nobody's perfect, ya' know.
Finally, private enterprise is to be applauded. The problem with "corporatism" is that it appears the big corporations have become the Fifth Estate, a branch of government. They enable big government, and big governement enables them. The exact opposite of capitalistic free enterprise.
ReplyDeleteNo, it's an inevitable consequence of capitalism. And capitalism and free enterprise are quite separate notions -- capitalism undermines free enterprise; competition is not in the capitalist entity's interest, so it lies, bribes, kills, or whatever else furthers its aim of eliminating that competition -- or any other aim it has.
Maybe they were forced into that posture by the government, but however they got there, that's where we are now.
An fine example of how ideology makes people stupid. Maybe the government forced big corporations to use all means possible to maximize their power? Why wouldn't they?
The government is an inevitable instrument of power and coercion. People (societies) can band together to use it to protect themselves from threats natural and human, or they can chant religious slogans about fictions like "free markets" and abdicate their power, leaving it to those entities that, by their nature, seek every possible advantage, with no concern for anything outside themselves.
Paul Craig Roberts (via anonymous), Asst. Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan, an architect of supply side economics, and editor of the (then) Wall Street Journal, said...
ReplyDeleteDestroying America does not mean blowing up buildings. It means destroying the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the separation of powers. Al Qaeda is powerless to bring about such destruction. Only our own government, enabled by the public’s and Viet Dinh’s and Attorney General Gonzales’ endorsements of the Führer Principle can destroy America....[bold mine]
Which is something I said only a couple of days ago, and yet Gedalyia still somehow maintains one should...
confront [this] mortal enemy
...and take up a struggle to defend the executive so as to...
determine whether or not our society and culture will survive.
Yep, when I think of America I think of baseball, apple pie and fealty to a bedwetting unitary executive.
I never used to think such abject cowardice was an American trait, but I must say Gedalyia and bart are doing a masterful job of changing my obviously pre-9/11 mindset.
I am sure he's not against Abraham Lincoln, although maybe he objects to an action Lincoln took. Nobody's perfect, ya' know.
ReplyDeleteI knew that all libertarians were mental and moral midgets, but I didn't realize that they were incapable of using google:
The American Lenin by L. Neil Smith
He has shown who he takes orders from -- most American's no longer accept the conclusions of the Warren report which was built on his "Single/Magic" bullet theory.
ReplyDeleteMost Americans think that humans were created in their current form within the last 10,000 years. What most Americans think doesn't determine what is true.
Trolls may come by and proclaim that it is based on fact
A "troll" being anyone who hasn't drunk the koolaid, apparently.
-- a rational review of facts, available evidence, and "experts" proves otherwise.
Uh, no, I posted a review of the available evidence; you just blow smoke through your tinfoil hat. Next you'll be telling us that Flight 77 didn't really hit the Pentagon.
Guess the bigger point is that he is part of a cover-up now and I don't give a damn what the apologists have to say about his participation in previous cover-ups
That's rich. I'm no "apologist" for Spector -- his vote for Alito should send him to the firing squad. But the facts strongly support the single bullet theory, just as they strongly support Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, and the WTC towers being felled by airplanes and not explosives.
Gedaliya said:
ReplyDeleteIf it covered the stuff he was doing he wouldn't do it.
Uh, why wouldn't he? Perhaps Bart can explain Bush's legal argument to Gedaliya.
The clue to understanding either of them, and the rest of the Bushies, is "apologetics", which is the opposite of intellectual honesty.
Another problem is that the "capitalists" who were men of vision and whose energy and inventiveness changed the world and made this country into a superpower are gone now. They've been replaced by a group of ruthless titans, propped up by special favors from government (which is only the case because capitalism itself is gone, so for businessmen to compete in this mixed economy, they have to play the corrupt game of lobbying government for "favors") who care only for profit, at the expense of principle, and who actually support this beast into which our government has evolved.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to be more historically and politically clueless. Look up "robber baron" and "gilded age". Here, this might help:
http://www.eurolegal.org/greendogdem/gdd0904/20040907gdd.htm
In June 2003, Bill Moyers said that "Karl Rove has modeled the Bush presidency on that of William Mckinley (1897-1901) and modeled himself on Mark Hanna, the man who virtually manufactured McKinley. Mark Hanna saw to it that Washington was ruled by business, railroads, and public utility corporations." President Bush's tax cuts have given over 93 percent of their benefits to large corporations and well-to-do households with over $250,000 of annual income (about 10 percent of the U.S. households). Moreover, President Bush's tax cuts are abolishing taxes on such asset-based income as stock dividends and capital gains. He is opposed to taxing management aristocrats' self-dealt stock options (salary payment in kind). He is opposed to requiring the corporations to treat such stock options as their personnel expenses. More than anything else, management aristocrats' stock options are encouraging many corporations to abandon manufacturing-and-supply procurements at home and switching to imports from China and other lower-wage countries. He is phasing out estate taxes. All these measures are transforming the past "potbelly flower vase" shape of the U.S. income distribution to the "bottom-heavy hour glass" shape.
This was the same kind of income distribution that the U.S. built during the McKinley-Gilded Age. There was no Securitiesy Exchange Commission to check "creative accounting" and Enron-WorldCom like malfeasance of corporations. America had poor public schools and medical care. There was no minimum wage or labor standard. Both federal and state governments and courts were hostile to labor unions and civic groups protesting the "injustices" of the society. The natural environment was ravaged by railroads, mining, lumbering, and newly emerging oil and gas firms. Abortion was illegal. Women did not even have the vote. In the South, Christian fundamentalists were pressuring public schools to stop teaching Charles Darwin's evolution theories. During the McKinley-Gilded Age, America's democracy atrophied. And America embarked on her imperialistic expansions of colonising Cuba, Panama, and the Philippines.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteFor the pathetic whining cowardly spoiled brats who moan about how hopeless it all is, you should direct them to Bill Moyers' speech, This is Your Story - The Progressive Story of merica. Pass It On.:
...Predictably, the Populists were denounced, feared and mocked as fanatical hayseeds ignorantly playing with socialist fire. They got twenty-two electoral votes for their candidate in '92, plus some Congressional seats and state houses, but it was downhill from there for many reasons. America wasn't – and probably still isn't – ready for a new major party. The People's Party was a spent rocket by 1904. But if political organizations perish, their key ideas don't - keep that in mind, because it give prospective to your cause today. Much of the Populist agenda would become law within a few years of the party's extinction. And that was because it was generally shared by a rising generation of young Republicans and Democrats who, justly or not, were seen as less outrageously outdated than the embattled farmers. These were the progressives, your intellectual forebears and mine....This is what's hard to believe – hardly a century had passed since 1776 before the still-young revolution was being strangled in the hard grip of a merciless ruling class. The large corporations that were called into being by modern industrialism after 1865 – the end of the Civil War – had combined into trusts capable of making minions of both politics and government. What Henry George called "an immense wedge" was being forced through American society by "the maldistribution of wealth, status, and opportunity."
We should pause here to consider that this is Karl Rove's cherished period of American history; it was, as I read him, the seminal influence on the man who is said to be George W.'s brain....Never mind the odds. Remember what the progressives faced. Karl Rove isn't tougher than Mark Hanna was in his time and a hundred years from now some historian will be wondering how it was that Norquist and Company got away with it as long as they did – how they waged war almost unopposed on the infrastructure of social justice, on the arrangements that make life fair, on the mutual rights and responsibilities that offer opportunity, civil liberties, and a decent standard of living to the least among us....
Be sure to read the whole thing.
But the facts strongly support the single bullet theory
ReplyDeleteLOL!!!
In your dreams maybe...
When even commissioners on the committee say otherwise....
But if you have all the answers, go ahead, tell the world...
Most people are do not believe that lie, but it ins't really what we are discussion today.
And since when is the Website of one marquette university professor the "definitive proof?"
ReplyDeleteLOL
Not exactly known as America's "premier" institution -- mostly rich kids from Chicago that could not get into better schools...
"truth machine"
ReplyDeleteThirty years from now some people will say anyone who believes Norad couldn't get a plane off the ground in time on 9/11 is talking conspiracy.
Whether you think that Kennedy was killed by Oswald or not, Specter's work on the Warren Commission was beyond dishonest. There are credible discussions about Specter's work on the WC, but the link you provided was not one of them. Your attempt to equate the single bullet theory with, what I consider, planted tales of explosives and missiles is intellectually lazy. Many of these stories were invented to poison the well and if you aren't bringing clean water to this party then step aside for the people with shovels and dirt under their nails. I have a feeling we are going to need them.
I would like to say that the Kennedy assassination is old business, but with Cuba, New Orleans, Specter, Posada and the Church Commission in the news it is like we never left the sixties.
On a side note, the 9/11 commission report actually made the Warren report look like a thorough and thoughtful work.
-ifnumbersweremadeofwood-
Professor McAdams teaches American Politics, Public Opinion, and Voter Behavior....
ReplyDeleteSo just what is it that makes him the "ultimate expert" on Specters cover up of the 1960's?
Guess as a poli-sci person at a second-tier private school for the "not too bright" elite -- we can all see where his loyalties are.
An expert in the jfk case and an authority on specter's magic bullet?
LOL
But I guess he does kind of play one on radio sometimes...
So just what is it that makes him the "ultimate expert" on Specters cover up of the 1960's?
ReplyDeleteRepeating your idiotic ad hominem and strawman points doesn't strengthen them. Anyone is free to go to his site and consider the validity of the evidence which he documents and links to, quite independent of his credentials or expertise. Most people here will realize that only a very very very very stupid person would think that attacking the economic and academic qualities of the students who attend the university of a professor at that university counts as an argument against some claim made by that professor. That's even more stupid than what we get from folks like Gedaliya. Goodbye, cretin.
Whether you think that Kennedy was killed by Oswald or not, Specter's work on the Warren Commission was beyond dishonest.
ReplyDeleteI never claimed that Specter's work there or anywhere else was honest -- I only said that the evidence supports the single bullet theory. Can you really not understand the difference?
There are credible discussions about Specter's work on the WC, but the link you provided was not one of them.
Indeed it wasn't -- it doesn't discuss Specter's work, it discusses the factual basis for the single bullet theory.
Your attempt to equate the single bullet theory with, what I consider, planted tales of explosives and missiles is intellectually lazy. Many of these stories were invented to poison the well
The intellectual laziness here is your special pleading. Given the very large number of contradictory JFK conspiracy theories, the notion that many of them were planted in order to sow confusion (not "poison the well" -- you should learn the meanings of the phrases you use) is nearly inescapable, especially when known right wingers like Fletcher Prouty were involved. And I didn't equate the single bullet theory to tales of explosives and missiles -- that's pretty stupid, since I believe the latter are absurd and clearly contradicted by the evidence, while I believe the single bullet theory is correct (although for about 30 years I thought it too was absurd -- but without knowledge of the evidence, other than what I had gotten from people like Prouty and Mark Lane). If I were offering equations, I would equate 9/11 to the Reichstag fire which, whether or not it was set by the Nazis, was exploited by them to further their damnable agenda.
For ronnie from today's Associated Press article:
ReplyDeleteIn their six-page letter, the Democrats said the special counsel should investigate any possible violation of federal criminal law, noting that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act says the monitoring of U.S. citizens and residents -- without a warrant -- is punishable by imprisonment.
Bush administration officials have argued the program does not fall within that law. They say Bush was exercising his constitutional authority as commander in chief when he allowed the National Security Agency to monitor -- without court approval -- the international calls and e-mails of people inside the U.S. when one party may be linked to terrorism.
The administration also maintains the president had the power to order the surveillance under a broad 2001 authorization to use military force in the war on terror.
truth machine declares: I knew that all libertarians were mental and moral midgets, but I didn't realize that they were incapable of using google:
ReplyDeleteThat is an ignorant and uninformed accusation, and quite offensive, at least to me. I'm a libertarian. Go take a gander at the blogs on Glenn's sidebar, the ones he says he reads. Virginia Postrel is a libertarian who was senior editor at Reason magazine for over a decade - Reason remains a popular libertarian journal read by many reasonable people, and their group blog, Hit 'n Run, is also generates a good deal of well-informed and intelligent discussion. Then there is QandO -- three more libertarian bloggers whom Glenn both reads and to whom he has approvingly linked.
Then there is the legal blog, The Volokh Conspiracy, which Glenn also reads. Many if not most of the lawyers at that group blog are libertarians.
Lew Rockwell is a fringe figure among Libertarians who, among his other insanities, promotes Gary North. North is a Xian Reconstructionist who is libertarian about economic matters, but who would trash the Constitution and replace it with Levitical Law. To call someone a "libertarian" who would execute homosexuals, adulterers and wayward youth -- and who would allow religious liberty only for "true" Xians -- is deranged, but that is what Rockwell does.
Tarring all libertarians with Lew Rockwell and the fringe nutjobs who travel with him is as fair and reasonable as insisting that everyone who is left-of-center is no different than the Communist Party USA.
..in the process, allows eavesdropping without case-by-case warrants.
ReplyDeleteThis gets to the very essence of the eavesdropping - in fact, eavesdropping is a bad term. What they are doing is harvesting, mining, conjecturing, hypothesizing, extrapolating and doing pattern recognition.
If the true scale of the intrusion were apparent there'd be rioting in the streets - if this administration is framing it as "eavesdropping" the VERY next question has to be, "what words are more accurate but more damaging?"
What they are doing is harvesting, mining, conjecturing, hypothesizing, extrapolating and doing pattern recognition.
ReplyDeleteExactly, and we should thank God for it. Our enemies are hoping and praying to Allah that our little homegrown bunch of useful idiots will succeed in their efforts to hamstring the administration's program to intercept al Qaeda's lines of communication. So far this is unlikely to succeed, since every responsible U.S. politician understands the vital importance of the NSA program and others like it. But nonetheless, we must remain vigilant in supporting the president as he makes war on and brings mayhem to our mortal enemies.
If the true scale of the intrusion were apparent there'd be rioting in the streets
Perhaps you've been watching too much television, looking at the contorted, screaming faces of rage-filled muslims rampaging through the streets of their decrepit, stinking cities burning, killing and destroying simply because a Danish newspaper published a few cartoons.
The religion of peace, indeed.
But don't be worried....I can assure you that no matter what the extent of the NSA program a similar reaction won't occur on any American street, even if the very worst of your suspicians turns out to be true.
A fine example of how ideology makes people stupid. Maybe the government forced big corporations to use all means possible to maximize their power? Why wouldn't they?
ReplyDeleteRespectfully, and without getting into a long discussion of the various economic systems, this statement suggests a basic lack of understanding of laissez faire capitalism.
In a purely capitalistic system, government stays completely out of the market. Companies rise or fall by how effectively they are able to manage their business and how well they serve the needs of their customers.
If the company is inefficient, if it charges too much or produces inferior products, another company will come along that better serves the needs of its customers, and it will force the inefficient company either to go out of business, or become more efficient.
Only "natural" monopolies survive---that is, companies which operate so efficiently that nobody else can compete with them effectively.
In a system such as ours, which is a mixed-economy, it is the government itself which creates and then protects monopolies. It does so by interfering in the marketplace (grants, awarding of contracts on the basis of cronyism, not merit, restrictive legislation, unfair tax advantages, etc.)which favor one company or one industry over another, and which penalize new companies who would succeed on the basis of merit, but cannot because they are playing against those who have stacked the deck.
When the government "favors" one company over another, when it enacts various legislations and tax policies which thwart competition, it creates a system in which companies thrive and prosper not based upon how effectively they operate by because of how effectively they lobby government for "protected" status.
An example would be the various drug companies and companies which are awarded military contracts.
But what is a company to do if its competitors have lobbyists who "bribe" the government into either passing legislation which favors them, or granting large contracts to certain companies on the basis of "rigged" bidding, or giving them special tax breaks other companies do not receive?
They are forced to adopt those same practices to survive. They either hire their own lobbyists and attempt to get those same special priviliges, or they go out of business.
It is the government which creates all monopolies by giving them a "protected" status so that other companies cannot compete on a level playing field.
That is why I wrote that the government policies and corruption have created the "corporatism" that another poster had referenced, and it is not an excess of a capitalistic free market system, but rather the opposite.
If you have to suck up to government to survive, that's what you do, or you go out of business.
But once you and government have developed that "cozy relationship", you can indulge in the most corrupt business practices, produce the shoddiest products, engage in the biggest frauds, and the market will not bring you down as it otherwise would, because the government will protect you.
The biggest casualty of government corruption is the type of unfettered competition in a free market that put this country where it is.
Now that government corruption has risen to the level of an art form, the business environment has become almost totally polluted. But in a sense they were the victims of government corruption, not the cause of it.
Re: The L. Neil Smith article on Lincoln that was linked to here.
ReplyDeleteYes, I see Mr. Smith is indeed against Lincoln. Now that I have read his article, so am I. I supposed we can all be victims of revisionist history, as I no doubt have been with regard to Lincoln.
I had read other articles and books talking about the same points Mr. Smith makes, but had forgetten those long ago.
Lincoln wrote some of the most brilliant, eloquent language in our nation's history.
His motivations and actions, however, appear to be extremely alarming. Anyone whose position was "that if maintaining slavery could have won his war for him, he'd have done that, instead" is not a hero in my book, no matter how many positive things he did. Whereas most are taught in this country that Lincoln fought to "free the slaves", and revere him largely for that reason, it appears that is not true.
Lincoln saw the introduction of total war on the American continent -- indiscriminate mass slaughter and destruction without regard to age, gender, or combat status of the victims -- and oversaw the systematic shelling and burning of entire cities for strategic and tactical purposes. For the same purposes, Lincoln declared, rather late in the war, that black slaves were now free in the south -- where he had no effective jurisdiction -- while declaring at the same time, somewhat more quietly but for the record nonetheless,that if maintaining slavery could have won his war for him, he'd have done that, instead.
The fact is, Lincoln didn't abolish slavery at all, he nationalized it, imposing income taxation and military conscription upon what had been a free country before he took over -- income taxation and military conscription to which newly "freed" blacks soon found themselves subjected right alongside newly-enslaved whites. If the civil war was truly fought against slavery -- a dubious, "politically correct" assertion with no historical evidence to back it up -- then clearly, slavery won.
Lincoln brought secret police to America, along with the traditional midnight "knock on the door", illegally suspending the Bill of Rights and, like the Latin America dictators he anticipated, "disappearing" thousands in the north whose only crime was that they disagreed with him. To finance his crimes against humanity, Lincoln allowed the printing of worthless paper money in unprecedented volumes, ultimately plunging America into a long, grim depression -- in the south, it lasted half a century -- he didn't have to live through, himself.
truth machine:
ReplyDeleteI am sure other posters on this site will join me in saying you are not welcome here.
If you cannot treat other posters with respect and dispense with the insults and ad hominem attacks, I think you would do better to find another blog.
I also do not think that most of the posters here are against the actions of the present administration because they want to replace it with communism, which apparently is your preference.
ReplyDeleteI am sure other posters on this site will join me in saying you are not welcome here.
It is a very bad idea to assume the authority to speak for everyone. Truth machine has written some things I find both offensive and politically objectionable, but there is no reason not to have many voices heard here. Indeed, it is one of the best asepcts of this site -- that so many political postures are intelligently represented.
I do not pretend to speak for Glenn, but I will concur with hypatia, I welcome all provocateurs and devil's advocates because I wish to be welcome myself. Some say concurrence, like a good glass of wine, makes for a pleasant meal and a good night sleep. I will raise a toast to argument and debate. It is funny how an enemy will freely offer what only the best friend can give. A whetting stone.
ReplyDeleteWith that out of the way.
"Truth Machine" said:
I never claimed that Specter's work there or anywhere else was honest -- I only said that the evidence supports the single bullet theory. Can you really not understand the difference?
This decreasingly relevant thread was started when a poster pointed out that Specter's work on the WC and the SBT in particular did not bode well for the Specter as guardian of the constitution argument. The truth of the matter regarding the SBT is irrelevant to the point. Just as I could say the earth is round because I saw it from the space shuttle, the fact that the earth is round is not proof I was on the space shuttle. Specter's behavior on the WC is relevant. In my opinion, Specter is not to be trusted period. This man's currency is false hope.
At this point, I long for a time when an intelligent conversation about the SBT could be a good use of resources but there is much work to do. We are living in history right now and I wish to participate in the naming of things. For that future day you and Mr. McAdams need to update your findings to reflect the last twenty years. Mark Lane?
As far as "poisoning the well", I meant what I said. I believe the stories of explosives and missiles are "given value" to discredit anyone who questions orthodoxy. Referring to another poster you said:
Uh, no, I posted a review of the available evidence; you just blow smoke through your tinfoil hat. Next you'll be telling us that Flight 77 didn't really hit the Pentagon.
Here you use the mere existence of these theories in an attempt to discredit the deviation from the government position on the SBT. You managed to simultaneously get and miss the "poison well" point at the same time.
-ifnumbersweremadeofwood-
Tip: Cindy Adams reporting that at least a dozen members of Congress, most of them Republicans, are about to be indicted.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Bush thinks that will distract people from the Port deal. It won't.
But remember when we were all musing recently that perhaps the scandals du jour would all blend together and drift away?
Well, it may be instead that the scandals du jour will all blend together to capsize the boat.
And the Port deal is the catalyst.
I am sure other posters on this site will join me in saying you are not welcome here.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure that most other posters would find such pompous and foolish BS from an anonymouse poster rather amusing.
I also do not think that most of the posters here are against the actions of the present administration because they want to replace it with communism, which apparently is your preference.
Communism? Wow, it's been a while since I've been redbaited -- what the hell century are you living in? I'm sure most other posters would find this comment incredibly dumb.
I am sure other posters on this site will join me in saying you are not welcome here.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure that most other posters would find such pompous and foolish BS from an anonymous poster rather amusing.
I also do not think that most of the posters here are against the actions of the present administration because they want to replace it with communism, which apparently is your preference.
Communism? Wow, it's been a while since I've been redbaited -- what the hell century are you living in? I'm sure most other posters would find this comment incredibly dumb.
As for "ifnumbersweremadeofwood": your endless fact-free innuendo is quite
boring.
"Truth Machine"
ReplyDeleteWhen you double up a post just to point out that you are bored you are sending mixed signals. Is this some kind of metaphorical punch in the arm and then a breathless dash down the hall, red faced and giggling?
I certainly didn't expect a substantive reply, but this?
----
Now that is fact free innuendo.
This stone is sinking.
--whittlerootsintosquare--
Sunny said:
ReplyDelete"That is why I find it so hard to be optimistic.Besides the Congressional Black Caucus, no Dems are willing to discuss the issue of black box voting, and msm act as if questions and concerns about electon '04 don't exist."
See, if they called it "white box voting," then white folks wouldn't be so afraid to go near the issue or acknowledge its existence.
Also, then the media cover the story.
If Mr. Greenwald did not post for 24 hours it strikes me that many commenters here would self-immolate. Is this therapy or a movement to elect some Democrats?
ReplyDeleteMaybe the government forced big corporations to use all means possible to maximize their power? Why wouldn't they?
ReplyDeleteRespectfully, and without getting into a long discussion of the various economic systems, this statement suggests a basic lack of understanding of laissez faire capitalism.
Um, you didn't answer my question, nor provide any reason to think that I lack an understanding of capitalism. Calling it "laissez faire" begs the question, as does the claim that "Companies rise or fall by how effectively they are able to manage their business and how well they serve the needs of their customers", which shows that it is you who has no understanding of economic theory, which provides no substantiation that these are the only, or the most relevant, factors in the rise and fall of companies. The basics of market economics deal with supply, demand, and rational agents, not "serving" the "needs" of "customers". Your notions of economics sound like something you read in a McDonalds or Enron brochure.
When you double up a post just to point out that you are bored you are sending mixed signals.
ReplyDeleteWhen you treat a common unintended result as if it were an intentional one you are sending a clear signal that you're a clueless moron.
Actually, Smith's "North American Confederacy" diverges from our history in a small way in 1776, with a Declaration of Independence that says governments derive their just powers from the unanimous consent of the governed. The big change comes in 1789, when the Whiskey Rebellion ends with Gallatin shooting Washington, overturning the "dictatorial" Constitution, and returning to the Articles of Confederation. (No shit, that's really how he has it all go down.)
ReplyDelete