Like anyone else, the White House has every right to engage in aggressive advocacy when defending itself as part of the NSA scandal or any other issue, and it is not the role of the media to take sides in political debates. But when the White House simply lies, it is the responsibility -- the core purpose -- of journalists to point that out.
Here, according to an article from Reuters, is what Scott McClellan said today in response to Sen. Feingold's censure resolution:
"I think it does raise the question, how do you fight and win the war on terrorism?" McClellan said. "And if Democrats want to argue that we shouldn't be listening to al Qaeda communications, it's their right and we welcome the debate. We are a nation at war."
This is not advocacy. This is just lying. No Democrats are advocating that we not listen to Al Qaeda communications, and Scott McClellan knows that. And no journalist ought to pass along this falsehood without pointing out that it is factually false.
The debate is not and has never been over whether we should eavesdrop on Al Qaeda. Everyone wants eavesdropping on Al Qaeda. The issue is whether the Bush Administration should eavesdrop in accordance with the law (with judicial oversight and approval), or in violation of the law (in secret and with no oversight, something that has been a criminal offense in this country since 1978). That is NSA Scandal 101, something that has been clearly established and beyond dispute from for months.
It is a potent reflection of how little the White House can say in response to the accusation that the President broke the law that they can respond only by: (a) flagrantly and dishonestly distorting the argument against it (by pretending that this is about whether we should eavesdrop on Al Qaeda), or (b) accusing those who protest the President's law-breaking of committing treason.
The reason that we invaded Iraq with an astounding (and truly embarrassing) 70% of the country believing (falsely) that Saddam personally participated in the planning of the 9/11 attacks is because the media failed in its responsibility to correct factually false Government statements. They just blithely passed them along without comment, as though their function is to give the government a megaphone for its propaganda rather than serve as an adversarial watchdog which cynically scrutinizes the government's claims.
It is completely unacceptable, and a total abdication of their responsibility, for the media to pass along the White House's factually false claim that Democrats oppose eavesdropping on Al Qaeda. The media does not need to, and should not, take sides in the NSA debate, but it ought to inform American citizens about what the arguments actually are and what the debate is about. If it doesn't do that, what does it do?
UPDATE: ReddHedd has a couple of very comprehensive posts here and here with all of the information needed to begin calling and e-mailing today in support of the Censure Resolution. I expect there will be a more focused and specific plan in a couple days, but for now, by all means, everyone should be harassing their Senators and encouraging them to support Sen. Feingold's resolution. I think the more quickly support emerges, first from citizens and then from Senators, the more momentum it can get.
UPDATE II: Crooks and Liars has the video of the press conference where McClellan made this false statement about Democrats being opposed to eavesdropping on Al Qaeda.
This is business as usual. Play to the uninformed masses to make political points. The end results is all that matters. "blog of the year" Powerline was doing this as far back as a month ago (http://reasonablyascertainablereality.blogspot.com/2006/02/can-we-at-least-have-honest-discussion.html).
ReplyDeleteGood work on this scandal...you area a daily read.
ReplyDeleteThe debate is not and has never been over whether we should eavesdrop on Al Qaeda. Everyone wants eavesdropping on Al Qaeda. The issue is whether the Bush Administration should eavesdrop in accordance with the law (with judicial oversight and approval), or in violation of the law (in secret and with no oversight, something that has been a criminal offense in this country since 1978).
For reasons too tedious to go into, I had occasion to listen to Rush Limbaugh today, and he was on a roll wrt Feingold's censure resolution. Rush shrilly declared, over and over, that Feingold and the Democrats oppose eavesdropping on terrorists, and this is simply more evidence of their woeful inadequacy in the area of national security. Feingold and other Democrats, said Rush, don't think we need to worry about terrorists.
Thankfully, the circumstances which put me in a position to be hearing this blather ended after about ten minutes; I thought my head might explode.
The media sells ads, that is what it does. It doesn't sell ads by making trenchant observations, nor does it keep the bosses happy by fact checking their dinner guests.
ReplyDeleteBlogs are the medium that will keep the government honest, and this is one of the best!
I'm with you in spirit, but it isn't literally a lie. Scotty's sentence was a conditional - "IF Democrats want to..."...
ReplyDeleteIt's a lie in an extended sense, but not in a literal sense...
More than close enough for me to be happy to use it as yet another drop in the big bucket of republican lies tho... :)
Rush shrilly declared, over and over, that Feingold and the Democrats oppose eavesdropping on terrorists, and this is simply more evidence of their woeful inadequacy in the area of national security.
ReplyDeleteI’m afraid, Hypatia, that’s been going on for quite a while.
One Example
Does anyone know if there is the equivalent of an ombudsman at Reuters? I can (and will) write to Deborah Howell at the Post, but it would be better to get in touch with Reuters.
ReplyDeletePart of why Republicans can get away with perpetuating this particular lie is that Democrats and intelligent citizens aren't doing enough to correct it. Bill Maher had a golden opportunity on his show last Friday to point out FISA's 72-hour provision in terms of getting warrants after-the-fact to cover times where they suspect terrorism etc. but can't get a warrant right away. And he said absolutely nothing. Neither did any of his guests (including Gloria Steinem). If we're not going to point this stuff out, Republicans are always going to jump in and lie if they see they can get away with it so easily.
ReplyDeleteFeingold voted against the Patriot Act, which included amendments to FISA.
ReplyDeleteYet hypatia claims it is not a fair criticism of Feingold that he does not want us to listen to Al Quaeda.
He doesn't want FISA, the Patriot Act, the NSA, datamining, wiretaps whether warrants are issued or not.
If he won't go for the Patriot Act -- any version -- then he is fair game for the criticism.
Limbaugh's is basically right. Every day Glenn and countless others call anyone who wants security measures "cowards". And you champion Feingold, who won't vote for the Patriot Act, which is a bi-partisan bill to help track and trace terrorists.
The left does not want FISA or the NSA and does not want to track terrorists in part because they don't think the threat warrants it.
Yet, they demagogue the ports issue, but don't want to trace phone calls.
Of course the White House is going to lie. They have to reframe the issue as one of surveillance. To do otherwise would put undo pressure on them to come up with better excuses for why Bush broke the law. Reframing lets them do what they are good at, blaming someone else for their failures/crimes.
ReplyDeleteWhy does anyone report or read what Scott McClellan says?
ReplyDeleteShouldn't he be speaking in an empty room by now?
He lies when he has to, and sometimes when he doesn't.
Yet hypatia claims it is not a fair criticism of Feingold that he does not want us to listen to Al Quaeda.
ReplyDeleteHe doesn't want FISA, the Patriot Act, the NSA, datamining, wiretaps whether warrants are issued or not.
More falsehoods. Feingold favored 99% of the Patriot Act, including the parts which amended FISA. The only parts he opposed had nothing to do with eavesdropping, but had to do with library searches and FBI letters.
He has made clear that he favors eavesdropping on Al Qaeda communications and he favors FISA, which allows for exactly that. There is no way to claim that Feingold opposes eavesdropping on Al Qaeda without lying about it.
This just boggles the mind. When I first posted here a couple months ago, as another "anonymous," I was moved to do so by the attempt on the part of right-wing media shills to portray the argument as one between Republicans who want to monitor Al-Quaeda, and Democrats who don't. Someone here, I think it might have been "the dog" (who signs his posts like Zarathustra--Thus Speaketh the Dog--like its a voice from on high) told me I'd made it up and no such thing ever happened. If I'm misremembering which right-winger it was, I apologize to His Dogship. Fortunately, soon after that I learned I was not alone in finding this particular attempt to pull the wool over the public's eyes completely reprehensible, and I read quite a few media accounts that called the righties on this utterly bogus spin. Glenn was extremely persuasive on this issue, and it seemed like they slowed down and almost gave it up.
ReplyDeleteFast forward--bizarrely, "here they go again." It's as if they're hoping all the editorials that nailed them for trying this a couple months ago have been forgotten. Or maybe they think that all the pundits who jumped on them back then will refrain from doing it again since they already addressed this once and won't bother to do it again.
When one side or another of a political dispute gets so brazen in its lying, I think it's incumbent on the media to do more than just point out that one side is lying. Since this is their second go-round at this same lie, the media should freely discuss what it means politically for the side thats blatantly lying to be doing so. How bad must their real position be for them to attempt once again to confuse the public with utter bullshit? And all those editors who took them to task initially for their mendacity, should pounce all over them, especially since the source of the propaganda is none other than the WH itself. When the WH spokesman looks into the camera and lies like a rug, the media has a responsibility to pin the blame where it belongs--on the President's head.
I guess I shouldn't be shocked at this, but I am. How far down the tubes have we gone when the WH spokesman can lie right in the public's face and expect to get away with it? How compliant has the media become when this expectation has every possibilty of being realized?
The rest of my afternoon will be spent writing to media outlets about this absurdity. Then I'm gonna puke off the balcony.
It's a good post, but you know what? Sadly, it's old news that our Press is completely unreliable. I have given up thinking of them as helpful. In fact, they are so anti-helpful that I'd say they are harmful and hostile to both our Democracy, as well as to just about everything they report on. Follow the money. Call me jaded.
ReplyDeleteThis is a case of letting the Republicans put us on the defensive. And never taking the offensive.
ReplyDeleteWhat the Dems always say is, "Of course we want to spy on al Queda." What they should say is "Of course we want to spy on al Queda. What we want is for the President to stop breaking the law." And keep hammering at the "breaking the law" thing. Once you're off defense, you have to go on offense or the other side will put you right back on defense.
It really proves Mr. Greenwald's point about the press abdicating their responsibility when a poster is relying on a comedian, Bill Maher, to correct the falsehoods of the administration's propaganda.
ReplyDeleteGlenn:
ReplyDeleteThis is not advocacy. This is just lying. No Democrats are advocating that we not listen to Al Qaeda communications, and Scott McClellan knows that. And no journalist ought to pass along this falsehood without pointing out that it is factually false.
A question...
The NSA is reportedly monitoring international calls between the US and foreign countries with one end being a telephone number captured from al Qaeda.
I do not believe that mere possession of a telephone number without any other evidence of who is using that number is probable cause to believe that the user of that number is al Qaeda. I have asked the attorneys here for any case law indicating that a telephone number alone can constitute probable cause for a warrant and was met with silence.
So here is my question to you and anyone else here....
Would you allow NSA to monitor telephone numbers captured from al Qaeda even if they cannot provide probable cause to get a FISA or any other type of warrant?
Don't get sidetracked on the probable cause issue. Assume it does not exist and please honestly answer the question.
Just once I'd like to see the entire White House Press corps get up and walk out. It would be even better if they would preface their walk-out by pointing out what an intellectually dishonest exercise the whole sorry daily charade has become.
ReplyDeleteLet Scotty simply issue a daily press release and then let the WH press corps spend the day actually covering what the WH does instead of what it says.
Sadly, it's old news that our Press is completely unreliable. I have given up thinking of them as helpful. In fact, they are so anti-helpful that I'd say they are harmful and hostile to both our Democracy, as well as to just about everything they report on. Follow the money. Call me jaded.
ReplyDeleteI don't call you jaded. I call you a defeatist loser who has given up.
Would you allow NSA to monitor telephone numbers captured from al Qaeda even if they cannot provide probable cause to get a FISA or any other type of warrant?
ReplyDeleteYes, I would, but the question is nonsensical, because there's no question that if someone's number was in a captured phone of an Al Qaeda member, that a FISA judge would give a warrant for that.
But if the probable cause standard is too high, then it should be changed just like Mike DeWine proposed doing in 2003 and the Administration opposed.
Whatever the law should be to allow eavesdropping on Al Qaeda, it should be. The law now does allow eavesdropping on Al Qaeda, which is why there is no excuse for violating it.
And, as has been shown to you before, Alberto Gonazles himself claims that the evidentiary standard for eavesdropping under the NSA program and FISA are EXACTLY THE SAME. By itself, that means that nobody can say that Democrats oppose eavesdropping on Al Qaeda without lying about it.
We can enhance the credibility of "advocacy" by being more tolerant of others that disagree.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, isn't one major difference between "advocacy" and "lying" that they lie demands acceptance?
Real advocacy encourages people to think and draw their own conclusion. I think that is an important point to discuss.
Lying is never successful if people do not blindly accept the lie. Advocacy can have be successful with many different outcomes.
Why do I feel that this distinction is not often recognized in the blogosphere.
But feel free to draw your own conclusion -- IMHO, that is what advocacy is all about.
I am not surprised that many will want to attack Feingold and censure, after all, chimpy and gang are trying to thump the war drums to rally people to support action against Iran.
ReplyDeleteSure, from a rational point of view, the U.S. military is not currently in a position to do so.
Will that stop them? I don't know. Anything that disrupt's the "echo chamber" that took us into a war of conquest based on lies has to be be a good thing.
Blogs are the medium that will keep the government honest
ReplyDeleteAnd how will the blogs establish credibility on any given issue without the links that virtually all use to other news sources?
You are not wrong, but this is the "I AM BLOGGER HEAR ME ROAR" thing -- roaring to the choir. I don't share you enthusiasm because most blogs are linking to other sources and then using that to proclaim the blogger is the "expert."
For example (don't take offense, just an illustration) take away atrio's links and what do you have? An open threadbot and a board full of insults and declaration that everyone above is a troll.
Scott McClellan:
ReplyDeleteif Democrats want to argue that we shouldn't be listening to al Qaeda communications, it's their right and we welcome the debate
Senator Feingold:
This issue is not about whether the government should be wiretapping terrorists – of course it should, and it can under current law
McClellan is an icorrigible scoundrel and an enemy of democracy. And after lying about Feingold's problem with the surveillance program he says, "we are a nation at war"
Herman Goering would be proud.
[T]he people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
"And if Democrats want to argue that we shouldn't be listening to al Qaeda communications"
ReplyDeleteI think what the White House is implying is: How do you obtain a warrant to eavesdrop on terrorist communications if you can't use warrant less surveillance to discover terrorist communications in the first place?
Good question, isn't it...
The new scheme appears to bridge this gap by allowing surveillance for 45 days without a warrant. Presumably evidence discovered within that time could then be used to obtain a FISA warrant for continued surveillance.
Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006:
"The Act permits warrantless surveillance for up to 45 days if:
The President determines that it is necessary to protect the United States against known terrorist groups that are planning or have engaged in attacks against the United States. The President must submit a list of these groups to Congress;
There is probable cause to believe that one party to the communication is a member, affiliate, or working in support of a terrorist group or organization;
One party is outside the United States; and
The program has minimization procedures in place, identical to those required under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”), to limit the acquisition, retention and use of non-public information about U.S. persons."
"Senator Feingold:
This issue is not about whether the government should be wiretapping terrorists – of course it should, and it can under current law"
If true, then what is the purpose of the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006?
Glenn -
ReplyDeleteThe paragraph directly FOLLOWING the McCllelan quote from the article says this:
"Critics say the NSA program could violate constitutional protections against unreasonable searches, as well as the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires the government to seek wiretap warrants from a secret court even during times of war."
That counts as not just "blithely pass[ing] [admin talking points] along without comment." In the course of a 250 word wire service article, this counts as "balance." The article lacks a line like "Democrats have continuously repeated that they want to eaves drop on terrorists, but that they wish to do so within the structures of law, etc..."
But that's because real problem with the article is that it relates the political scepticism of only one side - it's a problem with how the article is framed. It's a he-said-she-said article, but the [lazy] author obviously only talked to one side since s/he based the article on a white House press conference/gaggle.
Further, I'm not sure the proper role of the media is to "serve as an adversarial watchdog which cynically scrutinizes the government's claims."
I think you mean "critically," not "cynically:" scrutinizing the White House's claims "cynically" would be scrutinizing them in the light of the media's self-interest which, it could be argued, is what they already do. Alternately, you could mean "cynical" in the sense of examining the admin's BS in the light of the White House's self-interest, which would be stupid for other reasons: if this were the "proper role of the media" then no announcement from the government would be analysed in terms of the interests of the citizens (e.g. it's a maxim that can't be generalized.)
The media fails all the time, and in a number of ways, but the fundamental error is that they fail to report what's going on, to report the facts in a balanced way, without indulging in cynicism at all.
BTW - the fly - you're a total idiot. go away. and please people, don't respond to this freaking zombie troll.
Glenn Greenwald said...
ReplyDeleteBart: Would you allow NSA to monitor telephone numbers captured from al Qaeda even if they cannot provide probable cause to get a FISA or any other type of warrant?
Yes, I would...
That is good to know. Anyone else?
...but the question is nonsensical, because there's no question that if someone's number was in a captured phone of an Al Qaeda member, that a FISA judge would give a warrant for that.
Based on what authority? The telephone number could just as easily be the possessor's favorite falafel maker. Probable cause is a more likely than not standard and mere possession of a telephone number by al qaeda is not probable cause that the user of the number is themselves al Qaeda.
But if the probable cause standard is too high, then it should be changed just like Mike DeWine proposed doing in 2003 and the Administration opposed.
OK, then you support the elimination of the probable cause standard in the current DeWine bill?
And, as has been shown to you before, Alberto Gonazles himself claims that the evidentiary standard for eavesdropping under the NSA program and FISA are EXACTLY THE SAME.
And, as I pointed out to you at that time, most legal analysts, especially those on the left, interpret Mr. Gonzales' comment a reference to the lower reasonable suspicion standard used by the police to start an investigation, not the higher probable cause standard required for 4th Amendment and FISA warrants.
I would like to see Feingold demand a retraction, and, if one is not made, sue Scotty for defamation. This clearly qualifies, as it was a public utterance, it is false, it causes harm to feingold's reputation, and there is no privilege for a press spokesman (unlike a congressman on the houswe floor, for example.)
ReplyDeleteThat would be a great way to publicize the lying and I would love to see the media coverage. It is exactly the kind of red meat ratings fodder they would run with.
The paragraph directly FOLLOWING the McCllelan quote from the article says this
ReplyDeleteThat setnence is NOT inconsistent with the claim that Democrats oppose eavesdropping on communications with Al Qaeda and is therefore not even remotely sufficient to correct McClellan's false claim.
The claim that Democrats oppose eavesdropping on Al Qaeda is simply false - not unfair, not somewhat misleading, not spinning. It's factually false. And the media has an obligation to point out factually false statements from the government. That is Function Number One of the media.
Alternately, you could mean "cynical" in the sense of examining the admin's BS in the light of the White House's self-interest, which would be stupid for other reasons: if this were the "proper role of the media" then no announcement from the government would be analysed in terms of the interests of the citizens
No, I meant what i wrote -- that the reason why a free press was considered to play a critical watchdog role over the Government was because they would sceptically examine government claims and be an adversarial force against the Government. If the media works in tandem with the Government and simply provides an uncritical microphone for its statements, then it is like Pravda - just a propaganda arm of the state.
The reason why there is a guarantee of free press is because the media was supposed to be one of the checks and balances on government power. It only has that function if it is adversarial to the Government, not if it is an instrument used to amplify government claims.
Hume's Ghost said...
ReplyDeleteScott McClellan:
if Democrats want to argue that we shouldn't be listening to al Qaeda communications, it's their right and we welcome the debate
Senator Feingold:
This issue is not about whether the government should be wiretapping terrorists – of course it should, and it can under current law
Who is lying?
No one who has been briefed on this program claims that the NSA program can be conducted under the FISA Program as Feingold claims. I have repeatedly told you why I doubt that it can meet the probable cause standard.
If Feingold insists that the NSA Program must meet the FISA standard which it cannot, then McClellan is absolutely correct that Feingold does in fact oppose this program.
Lying is never successful if people do not blindly accept the lie. Advocacy can have be successful with many different outcomes.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that the Republican Party has accepted lying as a necessary and strategic tactic.
They don’t believe their own talking points anymore, but do recognize that these lies -- these fabricated talking points -- are necessary to maintain power.
Will any “straight-shooter” or “maverick” Republican come out on a talk show and admit that McClellan or Rush are simply being dishonest? No.
McCain knows this is a lie, so does Specter, so does Lindsey Graham, will any of them have the integrity to admit it if asked? No.
Will the mainstream media have the courage to ask them? No. The media knows these are lies, but the lies are so pervasive, so big, that they don’t have the courage to call them on it – they’d be accused of “liberal bias.”
This is why their lies have been successful. Bushites know this, and this is why they continue to do it – it works for them.
And until they are called on it, until it no longer works, until it becomes an embarrassment for them – a scandal – we can expect to see a lot more of it.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"I called Senator Levin's local office about an hour ago and they have indicated that he is likely to support the censure proposal so think that possibly his reaction yesterday was because he was taken by surprise."
3:42 PM
Thank you for that information, Anonymous. I was pretty damn sure we were going to be able to count on Senator Levin. As far as I'm concerned, he is one of the most competent, able, and effective Senators in the Senate. Probably because he acts on his core principles, and not on advice from pollsters.
I want to repost the list of Senators who I believe will be the core of the future Democratic Party. These are the principled members who vote to do the right thing for the American people, even, and especially, when it is not the "popular" view or when it conflicts with what the conventional wisdom of the media and the pundits declare should be done.
Every one of these Senators voted AGAINST giving the Executive Branch permission to invade Iraq (except for Tom Harkin who, however, seems to have learned from his mistakes). Nine of them (including Harkin this time, and the Independent Jim Jeffords) ALSO voted, just ten days ago, NOT to reauthorize the FISA-amending P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act [which was unrevised, except cosmetically, from the December version that the Democrats had successfully filibustered]. I guarantee that NO Senator did more homework on the provisions of the Patriot Act than Russ Feingold did (he has the comprehensive timeline of documents on his website), and these eight Senators (bolded below) had the guts and the principles to stand with him on that vote.
I consider this a roll call of HONOR for our country:
Daniel Akaka, HI
Jeff Bingaman, NM
Barbara Boxer, CA
Robert Byrd, WV
[Kent Conrad, ND - May be a flash in the pan?]
Mark Dayton, MN
Dick Durbin, IL
RUSS FEINGOLD, WI
Daniel Inouye, HI
Jim Jeffords, VT
[Tom Harkin, IA - Voted for the Iraq War, but against the Patriot Act reauthorization]
Ted Kennedy, MA
Pat Leahy, VT
Carl Levin, MI
Barbara Mikulski, MD
Patty Murray, WA
Jack Reed, RI
Paul Sarbanes, MD
Debbie Stabenow, MI
Ron Wyden, OR
anon 4.22 -
ReplyDelete"I don't share you enthusiasm because most blogs are linking to other sources and then using that to proclaim the blogger is the "expert.""
um... the issues of credibility and expert-ness are separate. most commentary blogs establish their credibility by virtue of the strength and consistency of their arguments, not by virtue of having priveliged access to anything. this is a long-established, though currently much neglected by the MSM, type of investigative journalism.
most "expert" blogs are indeed written by experts - professors like juan cole and PZ Meyers (and Glenn, when he posts on legal matters) - and should only be taken (and only offer themselves) as expert commentary in their various fields of expertise.
if you want to see a credible and expert blog written by an active newsman/journalist crew, look at Talking Points Memo - they do great original reporting and expert media commentary.
this "they aren't journalists therefore they aren't worth listening to" idea confuses expertness and credibility - you're not an expert are you? but you have well developed ideas which you can back up with publicly available data and present in convincing arguments, right? that's credibility and that's what most blogs aspire to and achieve. if you find their opinions interesting, read them. if not, don't. but there's no real objection to be made that they shouldn't be listened to because they aren't experts.
This is the crux of the issue.
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for the succinct way you've illustrated the problem.
How do we develop a mainstream media disciplinary sound machine that the republicans use to their GREAT adavantage?
Straight out lies that get nary a peep in response are the propaganda that is the cudgel the Democrats are beaten with daily.
We need a effective cudgel of truth. Glenn's post about the beltway "national" democrats are a symptom of this problem. They are the ones with the clout to get a national audience. How do we get them to speak for truth?
Glenn -
ReplyDelete"No, I meant what i wrote -- that the reason why a free press was considered to play a critical watchdog role over the Government was because they would sceptically examine government claims and be an adversarial force against the Government."
right, but you actually wrote
"They just blithely passed them along without comment, as though their function is to give the government a megaphone for its propaganda rather than serve as an adversarial watchdog which cynically scrutinizes the government's claims."
there's a difference between examining something "cynically" and "critically," which was all i was getting at. i esplained the difference and then said we need a "critical" press, not a "cynical" one.
did you even read the comment before you responded? we agree. i'm just pointing out that you misused the word "cynical." erg.
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteI've also got talking points and contact info in this VichyDems post, and a simplistic but simple response to the "if you're not a terrorist you shouldn't have a problem with surveillance" argument here (the Only Criminals Need Be Afraid Act of 2006).
And for a vision of how powerful the RP could be if we'd REALLY take action: this.
I'm rising to my feet and giving Sen Feingold a standing ovation at 4pm today - damn this man is a patriot and we need to support him.
ReplyDeletePlease stand up, where ever you are today and applaud. If someone asks why, tell them.
Spread the word!!
RG
Bart--
ReplyDeleteYou asked if we out here in the aether would support allowing the NSA to "monitor telephone numbers captured from Al Qaeda even if they cannot provide probable cause to get a FISA or any other type of warrant." Without accepting your premise, which I find highly dubious though not entirely impossible, here is my answer:
If your premise were true (i.e. if phone numbers captured from Al Qaeda wouldn't meet the probable cause standard) I would consider supporting some highly targeted legislation to permit warrants in such cases. However, even in this case I would absolutely not support the President breaking the law to perform such eavesdropping until and unless it was made legal, and I would support censure and even possibly impeachment if he did so. I don't scare easily, and I trust out system of government and laws far more than I trust anyone occupying a given office, so the "doing it for our protection" argument carries no weight with me.
i'm just pointing out that you misused the word "cynical."
ReplyDeleteI don't want to argue this forever so I will just say this: Would sceptical or critical have been a better word choice for describing how the media should view government statements than cynical? Maybe. But here's two definitions of cynical (from dictionary.com) which definitely apply:
Negative or pessimistic, as from world-weariness: a cynical view of the average voter's intelligence.
Expressing jaded or scornful skepticism or negativity: cynical laughter
The media should always be looking underneath government statements for the real motives, for the truth, which government statements are concealing. That's its role. They are not supposed to work cooperatively with the government. Their role is to be adversarial - a check on the government. "Cynical, critical, sceptical" - I think they all describe how the media properly views government claims.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIf Feingold insists that the NSA Program must meet the FISA standard which it cannot, then McClellan is absolutely correct that Feingold does in fact oppose this program.
ReplyDeleteYep, and people who support the 4th Amendment are opposed to the police fighting crime.
If the media debate is going to be played out in broad language and vague accusations, how about...
ReplyDeleteRepublicans favor secret police.
Democrats stand for American freedom.
A couple of years ago I visited with a niece in DC who worked for Sen. Nelson (Fla). She took several of us on a tour of the Senate offices. One thing struck me in all these offices. To an office, all had several television monitors going all the time tuned to the cable news channels and CSpan.
ReplyDeleteOver at FDL, several people have reported calling their representatives who have not yet stated their positions on the Feingold Censure. Senate staffers tell FDL's callers to "watch" the news for their positions.
No wonder these folks are out to lunch. Maybe we should let every person we contact know that we do not depend on cable news for our information and refer them to the internet along with our favorite news sites.
BTW, as loathesome as Scotty and the Republican noise machine can be in their total disregard for the truth, one thing stands out on all these important issues. The vast majority of the public no longer believes BushCo. He and his administration have lost all credibility. Save for the few as addressed below:
Bart Said...The NSA is reportedly monitoring international calls between the US and foreign countries with one end being a telephone number captured from al Qaeda.
Note the operative word in all Bart's posts dealing with NSA is "reportedly". He doesn't know what this program involves, he only "hopes" it involves what the Bushites say it involves. He still "trusts" Bush. The number of citizens who share his blind faith is diminishing by the hour.
but there's no real objection to be made that they shouldn't be listened to because they aren't experts.
ReplyDeleteuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I personally don't listen to anyone that doesn't have an understanding of what they are talking about....
I guess people don't have to be "experts", but they need to have an understanding of basic issues.
Without being able to point to sources, its just blah blah blah blah blah
Even if they don't directly link to other sources, picking up on the "issues" that are part of the national dialog is important.
We can agree to disagree, but I don't see how blogs are effective without bring in outside sources to give them a platform. Not an attack on blogs, just not ready to proclaim them the "end all" yet.
Glenn -
ReplyDeleteum... i agree, paying attention to the meaning of words is taxing. [btw, you're a lawyer, right? just wanted to make sure.]
let's just agree that "Cynical, critical, [and] sceptical" all mean the same thing, ok? 'cause that way it'll be easier to make clear what we "mean," right?
"Cynical," if you look into the etymology of the word, comes from the practice of analysing the ethical viewpoints of any agent relative to the self-interest of that agent.
"Scepticism," in it's fullest expression, states that there is no knowable truth, even though we're mostly familiar with it's lesser expression as reflexive questioning of all truth.
But, yeah, both of those sound like they mean the same thing as "critical." so, sure, even though they actually result in totally different behavior in practice, yeah, they "mean" the same thing.
but this point, that the words we use are important so we ought to bother to know what they mean and use them carefully, is "pedantic" so lets just chalk it up to "semantics" and move on.
(but you might want to look up "semantics" before you agree...)
Glenn:
ReplyDelete74% of the respondents to the MSBC question of the day - feel that Feingold's efforts to censure are to hold the president accountable.
The other choice was political grandstanding.
That's encouraging.
ALERT! Last day of voting.
ReplyDeleteGo to http://wampum.wabanaki.net/
Scroll down on the left to the last entry and click on "Best New Blogs." You cast your vote by posting a comment at the bottom of the comments section and entering
Unclaimed Territory by Glenn Greenwald.
You can also post a comment/vote in the Best Writing category and enter Glenn Greenwald.
The more visible this blog becomes, the more people in Washington read it, and the greater our prospects that the issues we care most about will be addressed. Also the more accessibility Glenn will have to politicians we all want on our side.
Thanks all.
Wow. Are you all listening to Russ Feingold on CSPAN. What a hero. He's our man.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, Murtha, as expected, folded completely on this issue.
What a suprised. Not.
You know what I hate about this whole thing? Elections. You mean to tell me that if we elect someone, they then get to exercise their office until the next election?
ReplyDeleteThis is the worst system of government I've ever heard of, well, except for the other ones.
harry jennings -
ReplyDeletewhat an intelligent, well developed critique. way to really think things through, to critically examine the issues, to grapple with the complexities of american politics.
by the way, i see you're recovering nicely from that lobotomy. congratulations on your new found peace of mind and trust in the benevolence of our elected authorities.
Uh oh. Specter is about to show his true colors?
ReplyDeleteUh oh. Specter is about to show his true colors?
ReplyDeleteBig time.
One truth that has not been stated in what I consider to be the correct wording has to do with all the lies about why Bush invaded Iraq. That truth is: The war was NOT the last resort. Bush did not exhaust all avenues before going to war. This is why the American deaths and the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis is so criminal. But, no one is saying this.
ReplyDeleteSpecter cites Article 11, says laws can't be passed which take away that authority from the President.
ReplyDeleteWHY HAVE ANY LAWS THEN, ABOUT ANYTHING? If the President has total power to do anything, why do we need laws?
dell said...
ReplyDeleteTo me it's simple:
Everybody wants to eavesdrop on al Qaeda. There's a legal way to do that, and an illegal way. The administration, with all deliberation, chose the illegal way.
I think most people are quite capable of comprehending that.
Yes they are...
Let's say that every single one of your claims of illegality concerning this program are true and indisputable. This is not close, but I will assume this for a political analysis.
Let me rephrase your argument in the way the voter will understand it...
Dems to Voters: Elect me and I will vote to impeach/censure the President for illegally spying on al Qaeda with a NSA program that we all support.
Do you now understand why every Elephant including myself are egging you on to make this THE ISSUE in the 2006 elections?
Are we at war? I thought we were just helping the Iraqis regain their footing?
ReplyDeleteSpecter cites Article 11, says laws can't be passed which take away that authority from the President.
ReplyDelete"Magic bullet" specter sure sang a different tune when Clinton was in office and I am sure they will all crow differently if a Dem wins in 2008.
Chimpy's approval at Gallop is now 36% -- these are the lying liars that oversample republicans and told us chimpy would win 2004 by a landslide.
The real numbers must be worse...
Are we at war? I thought we were just helping the Iraqis regain their footing?
ReplyDeleteActually, it is just a direct subsidy to the halliburton and the rest of the military industrial complex. Too bad that innocent Iraq citizens and U.S. troops had to die, but cheney and company have to earn their money...
Bart --
ReplyDeleteAgain, I want to say that I'm not accepting your premise that the activities in the program are confined to monitoring phone numbers captured from Al Qaeda, or similarly clear-cut cases. But even if you assume that point you're overlooking a very simple point, and I have to say I suspect you're being deliberately obtuse here. Nonetheless I will spell it out.
To most Americans, myself included, the possibility that we might have supported a legislation to allow what the President has done is no excuse for his doing it illegally. If he thought it was the right thing to do he could have taken it to the people and handled it in a lawful manner. Instead, he chose to commit a crime, and now he should be held accountable. Even the President isn't allowed to do something illegal simply because he believes it's a good idea; as I said above, I trust our system of laws far more than I trust anyone holding office. I believe you'll find this by far the dominant view in this country.
Let me rephrase your argument in the way the voter will understand it...
ReplyDeleteDems to Voters: Elect me and I will vote to impeach/censure the President for illegally spying on al Qaeda with a NSA program that we all support.
Do you now understand why every Elephant including myself are egging you on to make this THE ISSUE in the 2006 elections?
The key word there is 'illegally'. The American people have shown little love for Presidential lawbreakers, as your own recent history should suggest, were you to remember it.
My main concern about congressional censure (paranoid that I am, post-Bush-v.-Gore) is that -- should Diebold be foiled and we actually get a Democratic majority in either house after November, and impeachment proceedings started -- the Supremes might discover a hitherto-unknown "double jeopardy" bar to such impeachment proceedings, given the earlier censure.
ReplyDeleteSound stupid? Illogical? Nonsensical? Unprecedented?
So was Bush v. Gore.
On Specter: he now says FISA is unconstitutional ! This is astonishing. Specter knows damn well that the implication of this is that Marbury v Madison is unconstitutional. Does he really believe that? M v M held explicitly that it is the exclusive province of the judiciary to say what the law is. There has been no court decision finding FISA unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteSpecter needs to be challenged on this.
-Jack O'Roses
In light of the Feingold/censure-efforts, I took a stap at creating a "unified theory" of impeachment and censure. This is the result: [ Click ]
ReplyDeleteIt attempts to show how the foreign policy issues are linked in with ruses, distractions, and more war crimes: More of the same -- abuse of power and violations of the Constitution.
Don't lose hope there are other options. We haven't all gone nuts, nor have we given up protecting the Constitution, protecting rights, or taming abusive power.
There are solutions. Stay determined.
This morning, before I left for work I couldn't wait to get home to see the ramifications of Feingold's censure. I just got home and my first stop at AP resulted in this article, entitled Feingold Draws Little Support for Censure; a lugubrious framing of the subject, and just short of a hit piece.
ReplyDeleteThe usual suspects, i.e., Lieberman, Reid, and Pelosi all said they declined to endorse it (Lieberman went further: ''I'd prefer to see us solve the problem,'' - ok Eeyore, we'll solve this)until the IC finishes its investigation. Since they are not investigating anything, that means never.
Nevertheless, I shall continue my phone calling, emailing, letter writing, blogging, and screaming until this NSA scandal is part of the national discourse, and Bush is brought to account for his willful contempt for the Constitution and the laws of the land.
The President broke the law, and the people of the United States have the responsibility to hold him accountable.
And for those who use al Qaeda within the context of the Bush-ordered NSA warrantless wiretapping, ask the next 100 people you run into how afraid they are of AQ. Ask them if they are more afraid of AQ or what Bush is doing to this country and the precariousness of world peace (Iraq notwithstanding - where "peace" is only for the dead)
Even Gallop is admitting that the chimperor has a 36% approval ratings -- this is an organization that oversamples republicans and told us that chimpy was going to win 2004 by a landslide.
ReplyDeleteReal numbers must be worse. PLEASE DON'T BOTHER RESPONDING TO OUR RESIDENT "COPY AND PASTE" TROLL.
Clearly, the kool-aiders are a minority now and the talking points that are being dumped into this board are really meaningless.
Maybe the trolling is a sign of desparation, but it certainly isn't a rational dialog.
Chimpy and the repugs are WRONG FOR AMERICA and the majority now sees this!
Bart said:
ReplyDelete"Dems to Voters: Elect me and I will vote to impeach/censure the President for illegally spying on al Qaeda with a NSA program that we all support."
Bart, the master of false choices. Everyone does not support the NSA program. They do support eavesdropping on Al Qaida. The two are distinct and separate. The NSA program as has been autorized by Bush has been operating illegally without judicial oversight. Without the required oversight we only have Bush's word that the NSA is "ONLY" eavesdropping on Al Qaida. And quite frankly a majority of Americans don't believe that Bush tells the truth.
"Cynical," if you look into the etymology of the word,...
ReplyDeleteEtymology isn't meaning. Cynicism is scepticism about the motives of others. Glenn did not misuse the word, and you are being a jerk.
"Scepticism," in it's fullest expression, states that there is no knowable truth, even though we're mostly familiar with it's lesser expression as reflexive questioning of all truth.
Yes, we're all familiar with what the word actually means in its most common usage: "A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety", as opposed to what the word, "in it's (sic) fullest expression", "states" -- as if words have the capacity to make statements. A bit of a category mistake there.
but this point, that the words we use are important so we ought to bother to know what they mean and use them carefully, is "pedantic" so lets just chalk it up to "semantics" and move on.
It might be "pedantic" if you were actually right, but you're not. Cynicism is a specific kind of scepticism, and in the context that Glenn used it, it is scepticism about the honesty of statements by political actors.
On Specter: he now says FISA is unconstitutional ! This is astonishing. Specter knows damn well that the implication of this is that Marbury v Madison is unconstitutional. Does he really believe that? M v M held explicitly that it is the exclusive province of the judiciary to say what the law is. There has been no court decision finding FISA unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteSpector is full of crap, but he is no more implying that M v M is unconstitutional than when the ACLU files a brief claiming some action is unconstitutional. We all have opinions that certain things are unconstitutional, and voicing those opinions does not imply that we think M v M is unconstitutional. Sheesh.
My main concern about congressional censure (paranoid that I am, post-Bush-v.-Gore) is that -- should Diebold be foiled and we actually get a Democratic majority in either house after November, and impeachment proceedings started -- the Supremes might discover a hitherto-unknown "double jeopardy" bar to such impeachment proceedings, given the earlier censure.
ReplyDeleteAnd they might find some other reason that has no basis whatsoever to bar the impeachment, even if there is no censure.
Stop being governed by fear.
I'm with you in spirit, but it isn't literally a lie. Scotty's sentence was a conditional - "IF Democrats want to..."..
ReplyDeleteIf you insist on being a pedantic twit, don't expect anyone to take you seriously. Not that I'm saying you are a pedantic twit, mind you.
Spector is full of crap, but he is no more implying that M v M is unconstitutional than when the ACLU files a brief claiming some action is unconstitutional. We all have opinions that certain things are unconstitutional, and voicing those opinions does not imply that we think M v M is unconstitutional. Sheesh.
ReplyDeleteBut you havent explained the basis for Specter's opinion. On what basis is he saying that FISA is unconstitutional? Specter must mean that FISA intrudes on the President's C-in-Chief authority. But if that is so, how does the law recognize that? And besides, Bush has never challenged the FISA on this basis. For Specter to say what he said is ridiculous, and I maintain that the implication of his assertion is that the President, not the Courts, gets to decide what is and is not constitutional. This directly contradicts M v M.
-Jack O'Roses
So what is your purpose? To persuade or to annoy?
ReplyDeleteThere are some questions that you actually answer when you decide to ask. When I ask myself if I am hungry or thirsty, I am, or I wouldn't even think of it.
We all know the answer to that one -- I won't insult you, but am disappointed when people decide to "take on" the inane talking points from our resident troll.
This is especially true now that the chimperor is a wildly unpopular president. I don't need to speculate why our resident troll constantly copies and pastes the rightwing talking points from the wingnut blogs -- he is not participating in a discussion.
Clearly, he is just copying and pasting talking points and they get more inane and off-topic as the chimpster's popularity falls. The wingnuts are on the "fringe" now.
GET IT? WE DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER TO THEIR BAITING NOW!!!!!!!!!!!
This is something to celebrate -- YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MSNBC had a poll too - but I don't see it on their frontpage. Chimpy to was losing 74% to 26% on the censor issue.
ReplyDeleteDid the war-profiteering GE take it down? Lying bastards...
The Elephants are so terrified of the Feingold censure resolution that they attempted to set this for votes on both Tuesday and Thursday of this week. In this, the Senate took a page from the House, which held an immediate vote on the Murtha withdrawal motion.
ReplyDeleteThe Donkeys are so eager to get on record supporting the Feingold censure resolution, that they blocked the Elephant attempts to set this resolution for an immediate vote.
PLEASE call your Donkey senator repeatedly and email him or her continuously, demanding that they allow an immediate vote on the Feingold censure proposal to show the American voters where they really stand!
Anon 8:52
ReplyDelete"Cynicism is a specific kind of skepticism."
that's actually not true.
they simply mean different things.
you seem to know what skeptical means, so here's the primary OED definition of "cynicism:"
Resembling the Cynic philosophers in contempt of pleasure, churlishness, or disposition to find fault; characteristic of a cynic; surly, currish, misanthropic, captious; now esp. disposed to disbelieve in human sincerity or goodness; sneering.
I think the original point was that having a "cynical" press isn't a good idea, and why should be clear from the definition.
What Glenn meant to say in his post instead of "cynical" was "critical." This objection was intended to be, and was originally articulated as, a very minor one.
However, he decided that rather than just say "oh yeah, I meant critical," he would treat "critical," "skeptical" and "cynical" as synonymous.
that's just sloppy, thus the totally justified snark.
BTW - look up "pedantic" to see exactly why your response is (unintentionally) actually pretty funny.
I want to pass along some very heartening, hopeful news (scrounged up at DU).
ReplyDeleteApparently, while everyone was tuned in to Feingold's speech, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid was making a bit of a stand himself today, on the Ed Schultz radio program.
To wit, Harry Reid told Ed Schultz...:
...That Bill Frist is "a lapdog of the President" [I'll second that motion].
...And that Reid "fully supports" Feingold's Censure Resolution, because it will "open up doors that have not been opened."
Reid also said that the Democrats knew the Resolution was coming (Durbin said on the floor today that he heard about it yesterday, but didn't realize it was being introduced so quickly).
So here's hoping mightily that this ray of hope strengthens into a penetrating searchlight, wielded by the man from Searchlight, Nevada and powered by a unified stand by the Senate Democrats.
We need Harry Reid and Dick Durbin to do some whipping, and I will trust that's happening behind the scenes, until proved wrong.
And the Washington Post with its pre-game predictions can go jump in the lake.
When you've got Dick Cheney gunning for you so quickly, you know you're closing in on the bullseye. [Speaking of Dick and the Senate floor, video evidence is leading to speculation that there was a male GOP operative behind Feingold in the screen shot during his speech who was surreptitiously giving him the finger with hand on head gestures... We need an i.d. on that guy to the left of Feingold as you look at the screen.]
Thanks, Harry. Get some rest.
I see Bart the bedwetting Monarchist is here parroting the party line again.
ReplyDeleteBart the bedwetting Monarchist
ReplyDeletecheers to that!
what a craven tool.
since someone else brought it up:
ReplyDeleteknow what?
I used to have some respect for BART: I thought that he was at least pursuing his ideas in an intellectually honest way, attempting to present an under-represented viewpoint here, doing some out-reach for the lurkers, whatever.
but I read these comments a lot, and it's been many many posts since he's done anything resembling independent thought, or attempted to do so.
he's a troll plain and simple.
and i do mean it in an ad hominem way:
he an obnoxious, stupid man whose only purpose here is to offend and distract. he should go away and not come back. ever.
Glenn should, but probably won't, ban him or, at least, limit him to one post a day.
And other people should, but won't, ignore him.
oh well. so it goes. it's just too bad, really.
Folks, I am sorry that you didn't like my news that the Elephants are supporting an immediate vote on the Feingold censure proposal. I thought that you would be thrilled with the opportunity to actually act on the Feingold resolution rather than just talking.
ReplyDeleteAm I wrong?
Call your Donkey senators and demand that they support an immediate up or down vote on this resolution so you can find out where they really stand.
I have been telling you for weeks now that the problem with accomplishing your goals is your own party.
In return, you call me a "troll."
If you don't believe me, demand a vote in favor the Feingold censure resolution as the price for your vote this fall.
I am trying to prove my point. Are you afraid that I will do just that and the vote will be 99 to 1 against?
Have the courage of your convictions and hold your own party to task.
Georgia10 has a superb post up on Daily Kos that delineates the important distinction between inherent and absolute (plenary) power (of the presidency), and in as clear and concise manner as I have seen, lays out the issues extant in the NSA scandal.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, on September 8, 2008, Roger Pilon, Ph.D, then vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute and director of Cato’s Center for Constitutional Studies testified in Congress before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources
Committee on Government Reform on the subject of The Presidency and the Privacy Act.
Excerpted below are sections that bear upon the subject at hand, i.e. the NSA wiretaps as ordered by President Bush and as yet unknown concomitant domestic spying programs:
The premise of our system is not "All that is not retained by the people is given to the government." Rather, as the Tenth Amendment makes clear, it is "All that is not given to the government is retained by the people." Thus, the burden is on government to show that it has a power, not on people to show that they have rights. It falls to the White House to show that it has the powers the Justice Department claims for it. It does not fall to individuals to show that they have rights that trump the otherwise plenary powers of the president. If the president can show that he has the powers in question, then Congress may not restrict them (or expand them), even if it does so "clearly." If he cannot make that showing, then any congressional articulation of those limits would merely make explicit what is already implicit. It would not amount to a restriction on the president’s powers, since he has no such powers…
…With the Privacy Act, the presumption in a free society is that people have a right to their privacy, a right, especially, to be free from government disclosure of personal information that was acquired for a specific, limited purpose. Thus, unlike with FOIA (Freedom of Information Act, the exceptions allow release, for specific reasons related, again, to the very purpose of the act—to enable information to be gathered under secure conditions. That is why the White House should be included under the act—to enable it to gather necessary information under secure conditions. But again, the burden is on those asserting such an exception to the presumption of privacy, not on those asking for privacy…
…We should never depend upon the good will of government officials. In my case, after all, it was the watchdogs who needed watching. In reminding us a century ago that power corrupts, Lord Acton was simply repeating a truism that the Founders understood implicitly a century before that when they separated and divided power as they did. The Privacy Act is a statement about the perils of power. If it reaches anywhere, it should reach to the most powerful office in the nation, where power is most susceptible to abuse.
The premise of our system is not "All that is not retained by the people is given to the government." Rather, as the Tenth Amendment makes clear, it is "All that is not given to the government is retained by the people." Thus, the burden is on government to show that it has a power, not on people to show that they have rights. It falls to the White House to show that it has the powers the Justice Department claims for it. It does not fall to individuals to show that they have rights that trump the otherwise plenary powers of the president. If the president can show that he has the powers in question, then Congress may not restrict them (or expand them), even if it does so "clearly." If he cannot make that showing, then any congressional articulation of those limits would merely make explicit what is already implicit. It would not amount to a restriction on the president’s powers, since he has no such powers…
ReplyDeleteThis is an outstanding refutation of the idea that Congress may limit or eliminate the powers Article II bestows upon the President by enacting FISA. The President either has the powers of CiC or he does not.
Bart said:
ReplyDeleteSagittis vel, elementum at, volutpat at, lacus. Nulla facilisi. Phasellus velit eros, lacinia quis, sodales non, condimentum quis, orci. Nunc iaculis. Suspendisse sit amet urna. In viverra congue augue. Duis sit amet metus non urna porttitor euismod. Aenean euismod, massa ac cursus tristique, ante turpis varius erat, vitae porta lorem libero tempor nisl. Aliquam erat volutpat. Aenean aliquam, sapien sed suscipit rhoncus, ligula sem iaculis nulla, quis semper leo sapien id ligula. Cras vel quam. Ut magna elit, cursus et, ullamcorper aliquet, viverra sed, est. Integer aliquet dignissim odio. Quisque blandit, sem at adipiscing semper, diam massa ullamcorper dui, nec dictum sem ante quis eros.
Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Ut vel enim. Nulla bibendum egestas est. Suspendisse potenti. Donec congue sollicitudin massa. Etiam sit amet dui eu erat pellentesque blandit. Sed auctor tincidunt ligula. Praesent porttitor, sem eget molestie fermentum, magna felis feugiat tortor, vehicula faucibus est tortor scelerisque quam. Praesent sapien lectus, pretium eget, sagittis vel, faucibus sit amet, diam. In pellentesque facilisis ligula. Donec semper. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Suspendisse a nunc. Maecenas nec enim non urna vulputate volutpat. Vivamus non tellus. Quisque sit amet ligula. Sed metus ligula, commodo in, facilisis accumsan, pulvinar nec, purus. Cras vitae risus. Integer auctor enim laoreet mauris.
Morbi mattis arcu ut arcu. Phasellus dictum nunc ut elit. Praesent molestie quam a dui vulputate posuere. Fusce adipiscing consequat erat. Quisque massa. Aliquam volutpat egestas libero. Phasellus a magna. Donec mollis lacinia diam. Morbi luctus, purus a tincidunt vehicula, est nibh porta turpis, id dictum neque ligula ac mi. Etiam pellentesque, lacus sed imperdiet dapibus, velit augue tempus libero, nec commodo dolor est non nisl. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos hymenaeos. Aenean posuere commodo lacus. Maecenas nec nisl. Cras eget ligula ac lacus tristique accumsan. Praesent erat. Aenean at pede. Fusce nonummy venenatis diam.
In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Nullam iaculis sem in eros tempus tristique. Suspendisse sapien metus, gravida mattis, mollis eu, pulvinar in, nisi. Etiam egestas rutrum pede. Nulla pretium suscipit nulla. Nulla facilisi. Cras ac leo. Maecenas ultrices pede. Nam lobortis pede in quam. Phasellus interdum pulvinar ante.
Vivamus molestie, metus ac rutrum viverra, enim nunc dictum nulla, id dapibus arcu diam non elit. Aliquam mi est, elementum sit amet, lobortis in, feugiat non, elit. Vestibulum vel nibh. Ut sodales, velit vulputate condimentum vestibulum, sapien justo tincidunt nisl, eu placerat nisi massa non urna. Aenean luctus arcu rutrum pede mollis aliquam. Suspendisse mollis convallis leo. Suspendisse potenti. Nullam feugiat, pede non interdum pharetra, metus ipsum vehicula enim, ac tincidunt augue risus id tortor. Nulla facilisi. Nunc non metus adipiscing lacus varius tincidunt. Vivamus luctus lorem quis enim.
meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow
meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow
meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow
meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow
meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow
It would not amount to a restriction on the president’s powers, since he has no such powers…
ReplyDelete----
This is the core problem. The FISA Court of Review quoted numerous pre-FISA decisions and recognized the President has inherent powers post-FISA. Therefore, with the FISA Court of Review decision in hand, the President obviously has powers. There can be no denying this.
Bart said:
ReplyDelete"This is an outstanding refutation of the idea that Congress may limit or eliminate the powers Article II bestows upon the President by enacting FISA. The President either has the powers of CiC or he does not."
Article II of the Constitution states as to the Presidents powers as CIC:
Section 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject
relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Article II also states:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
No where in the Constituion does it say that the President can violate the law, or the bill of rights, or his oath of office.
Here is what looks to be an excellent constitutional analysis of why Senator Specter is wrong to say that FISA is unconstitutional:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/13/20331/1414
My analysis involving M v M above is beside the point.
-Jack O'Roses
To the Anon dude who called me a twit (albeit not literally).
ReplyDeleteI think you misunderstood the purpose of my comment (my fault, not yours).
The intention was to point out an obvious rhetorical comeback that a Snotty-defender would be almost certain to throw out there.
I think it's most helpful, when doing argumentative writing, to leave as many come-back doors closed as possible from the get-go, so they don't even get started.
While it IS pedantic - I tolly agree with you - it is nevertheless the case that what Snotty said there wasn't a literal lie. Calling it such leaves an opening for a comeback - no matter how pedantic. My purpose was really to suggest that THAT comeback could've been "written out of the script" by various methods in GG's original post.
that's all.
ommzms -
ReplyDeleteHaven't read the kos diary yet (gonna test my knowledge/inferential ability 1st)
Isn't the distinction between inherent and absolute just the intuitive one? To wit: at bottom, inherent just means bequeathed by the constitution - tho that same document might provide for a variety of methods of "trumping". Veto power might be a good example.
Contrariwise, absolute is silent on the question of the *source* of the power, but does say that there is NO trumping it.
Now I'll go read the diary n see how close I was! :)
BART-
ReplyDeleteHow about this:
You want to be taken seriously, not dismissed as a troll, right?
How about you voluntarily limit yourself to two posts a day?
Use the first to lay out a reasoned argument.
Use the second to reply to your critics.
You gain the right of first response - e.g. you have the ability to use the views your are critiquing in your argument as they have already been articulated and to frame your argument in the way most advantageous to you.
But mostly, you gain the prima facie impression that you're not just a troll to be ignored.
You lose the ability to get in the last word.
Of course, you won't agree to do this, because what's actually important to you is to appear right (if only to yourself) and to attract as much attention to your own stupidity as possible.
But hey, here's hoping.
I would also point out that this is a rather generous proposal: What I'd really like to see is you banned from this blog outright and forever, or, as a very very distant second, I'd like it a lot if you were limited by Glenn to exactly one post a day, with Glenn refusing to post those that aren't on point and/or intelligent.
From the FISA Court of Review:
ReplyDelete"We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
If this is true, the FISA Court could never turn down a foreign to u.s. person warrant, as it would not have the authority to encroach on the President's power to engage in foreign to U.S. intelligence gathering.
Perhaps this is why Specter believes FISA is unconstitutional, i.e. where it cannot encroach it must not be constitutional.
-Jack O'Roses: Your observations are excellent enough to want to make sure your name is associated with your posts.
ReplyDeleteTo do that, without having to type it at the end each post, don't press "anonymous" when you "Choose an identity" Chose "Other." Then next to username, type in Jack O'Roses. That way your posts will always start out with your name.
Specter is a lawyer and must know better. His was one of the most frightening performances of recent days. I saw a malevolence in his face that I have never noticed before. It was clear he had no interest in listening to what Russ said, but rather wanted to get a copy of Feingold's resolution so he could pass it on to WH lawyers to have them prepare an immediate retort to be read as soon as Feingold finished. He also appeared to be ready for Feingold refusing to give it to him before he spoke, and seemed somewhat taken aback when Feingold agreed to turn it over to him. He fumbled as if trying to regroup and come up with some other objection quickly, but was left with nothing to say, and stood there almost sputtering, appeariing off balance for a moment. Did anyone else notice that?
Feingold showed both class, and an easy ability to be able to think very, very quickly, assess, and make the right decision. I was really impressed both by how quickly he evaluated the situation, and the grace with which he handled the Specter exchange.
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteNo Democrats are advocating that we not listen to Al Qaeda communications....
... The debate is not and has never been over whether we should eavesdrop on Al Qaeda. Everyone wants eavesdropping on Al Qaeda. The issue is whether the Bush Administration should eavesdrop in accordance with the law (with judicial oversight and approval), or in violation of the law (in secret and with no oversight, something that has been a criminal offense in this country since 1978).
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'm hoping that you will have a big enough microphone to get the word out, Glenn: FISA says nothing about wiretaps targeting Osama and his buddies. That has been, and will be, legal and outside the purview of FISA regardless of the degree of suspicion. 50 U.S.C 1801 defines "electronic surveillance", and it doesn't include surveillances where the target is not a U.S. person:
(f) ''Electronic surveillance'' means -
(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other
surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio
communication sent by or intended to be received by a
particular, known United States person who is in the United
States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting
that United States person, under circumstances in which a
person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant
would be required for law enforcement purposes;
Just as you have no right not to be snooped if you call a Mafia don just to tell him his silk jacket is ready, "U.S. persons" have no protection from being snooped if they're calling Osama and Osama is the "target". And I can only hope that the NSA continues to tap Osama's calls if and whenver possible. NSA has been snooping on foreigners for many decades, and no one has suggested that they stop, much less that such is illegal.
It is necessary to record both sides of a conversation, and both the associate's and the target's words can and will be recorded, if there's a legal tap on the target. If there's anything troublesome in this particular provision of the FISA laws, it's that the maladministration seems to think that if should be able to "target" the "U.S. persons" in all the calls they make, not just their calls to Osama, and to do this without a warrant. If they want to insist that some "U.S. person" should be the "target", then out with the goods, and let a judge decide if there's reason for a warrant. Otherwise it's just spying on people in the U.S. whenevre they think it serves their purposes.
To sum up: Not only does no real person actually complain about tapping Osama, it isn't illegal even without a warrant!!! Let's get the word out there, and not let the Republicans get away with this big lie!
Cheers,
Glenn:
ReplyDelete[to our resident RW fluffmuffie]: And, as has been shown to you before, Alberto Gonazles himself claims that the evidentiary standard for eavesdropping under the NSA program and FISA are EXACTLY THE SAME. By itself, that means that nobody can say that Democrats oppose eavesdropping on Al Qaeda without lying about it.
Glenn, I've come to the conclusion that it's pointless trying to tell TOWSNBN anything over again. There's a good reason he didn't "hear" you the first time, and that is that he's not interested in any kind of dialoge. Give him not one post per day to make his say; for TOWSNBN, the rule ought to be "One chance to make each point, period (no matter hom many different threads you repeat it on), and that's it; you've had your say and you're out...." If he wants to just talk and never listen, he can get his own soap-box and rant as much and as long as he wants there to a non-existent audience.
Cheers,
Eyes Wide Open - Thanks for the posting tip and the gracious compliment.
ReplyDeleteYes, I did notice Specter's strange demeanor, and I interpreted his almost laughing expression in the exchange with Durbin to give away his knowledge that he was spouting nonsense merely to provide the President and the Republicans with political cover.
Michael Birk:
ReplyDeleteI don't think he is a "paid shill," but rather who he says he is: an attorney in Colorado.
If that is indeed so, I pity any actual clients he has; he repeatedly mangles even first year law school concepts....
Cheers,
do not invoke the name of a troll we are all glad to have done with.
ReplyDeletea moment of silence for --------.
what a total bastard.
and here's to hopes that bart will follow.
"The Goebbels technique, also known as argumentum ad nauseam, is the name given to a policy of repeating a lie until it is taken to be the truth."
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie
It was one of Hitler's primary rules, according to this quote from an OSS report:
"His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hitler-adolf/oss-papers/text/oss-profile-03-02.html
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteBART-How about this:
You want to be taken seriously, not dismissed as a troll, right?
I could really care less. I am not here to gain your approval. I am here for a good debate.
How about you voluntarily limit yourself to two posts a day? Use the first to lay out a reasoned argument. Use the second to reply to your critics.
This about sums up my posts here, which are almost always responsive to others.
However, I usually have a dozen or so of your posts directed at me, many lengthy. I attempt to respond to each since you took the time to post.
I would also point out that this is a rather generous proposal: What I'd really like to see is you banned from this blog outright and forever, or, as a very very distant second, I'd like it a lot if you were limited by Glenn to exactly one post a day, with Glenn refusing to post those that aren't on point and/or intelligent.
Something I have noticed about the left since I first became politically active at Boston College in the late 70s is that you folks really don't believe in free speech.
When a small band of we libertarians and conservatives campaigned at BC to get the mandatory and hidden fee to MASS PIRG replaced by the voluntary donations which every other political group on campus had to solicit, the open minded libs called us fascists, attempted to have our letters banned from the school newspaper, drew cartoons of us as storm troopers. stole our fliers and defaced the doors of our dorms.
Nothing has changed.
You folks have called me every name under the sun and are attempting to ban me for no other reason except that I take your ideas to task with facts, law and contrary ideas.
Go ahead an ban me. It would only prove my point.
"never leave room for alternatives"
ReplyDeleteI see 40 of the 108 comments so far are attributed to "Anonymous". Yes, that would be the same screen name used by the half wit attempting to control information by calling anyone with an opposing view a troll.
Anonymous, why don't get your own Blog.
While the press is really not doing their job, we tolerate it. Americans aren't getting too outraged over the junk we're spoon-fed on TV, in the print papers and radio. For the most part I think we've got a larger problem to solve than just getting the press corp to be more responsible... Your message got me thinking and I wrote this while altogether too tired last night: Why we tolerate News Corp et al.
ReplyDeleteLet me start by agreeing that Scott's statement was disingenuous. This was politics as usual. I honestly rarely find any statement by any Dem or Repub to be completely true. Lying is a way of life for all of them. Having said that....
ReplyDeleteDo you people get paid directly by Karl Rove, or are you merely 'usefull idiots'? Pleeease let this censure measure go forward. It will have the backing of maybe 17% of actual voters. People like the idea of monitoring the enemy. Because to not do so, would be to violate the oath the Pres. took to uphold the Constitution (read:Article II).
Beyond that however, the censure measure will ensure that Republicans GAIN seats in Congress this November. The Demoncat party would do well to split up into say....three or four different parties. The FDR Dems disagree with the JFK Dems, and neither group agrees with this generations Dems - the Marxist Dems. Keep it coming.