(updated again - with the link to the C&L post)
I never ended up posting at Crooks & Liars on Sunday, so I will post there today instead and will put the links to those posts here once they are up. For now, a few items of note:
(1) My first post at C&L
For committing the crime of discussing these issues, these two professors are now the target of a character smear campaign that is, in equal parts, mindless and vicious, and it comes from usual suspects such as Glenn "Instapundit" Reyonlds, Powerline, and The New York Sun. These types of attacks -- whereby anyone is immediately labelled an anti-Semite and a bigot by virtue of even questioning the role and behavior of neoconservatives or criticizing American policy towards Israel -- has, by design, intimidated most people from commenting on these vital issues. But as I say in the post
With our little adventure in Iraq becoming more disastrous and costly by the day, and with the all-too-familiar election year militarism heating up over Iran, this country has some very serious and consequential choices to make about our foreign policy. A substantive and frank discussion is exactly what we did not have leading up to the Iraq War, where war opponents were mocked and smeared and their arguments scorned but not answered. We should not allow the Instapundits and The New York Sun's of the world to drive our country -- again -- into foreign policy debacles through the use of character smear and cheap sloganeering in lieu of adult, meaningful and serious discussions about our foreign policy and the people who are seeking to shape it.
There is much in the conclusions of Mearsheimer and Waltwith with which one can reasonably, even vehemently, disagree. But one need not agree with them to recognize the importance of the issues they raise and of the equally important need to be able to discuss them without the smear tactics and personal attacks which, increasingly, have become the only tactic left to Bush followers.
(2) The finalists for the Wampum Koufax blog awards have been chosen, which you can see and vote for here. This blog was selected as a finalist for the Best New Blog category, Best Writing category, and Best single Post category (for Bush's Unchecked Executive Power v. the Founding Principles of the U.S.).
(3) Jennifer Nix -- who edited George Lakoff's best-selling book, was responsible for Markos' book being published through Chelsea Green, and who conceived of the idea for my book -- has written a guest post (below) expounding on her genuinely innovative and important approach for creating a new publishing system that will allow ideas to be delivered directly to Americans on pressing issues of the day without having to rely on the establishment media or anyone else. In a sense, what she has been building for some time is the blogosphere version of book publishing -- an intense, citizen-driven model for delivering ideas, arguments, analysis and evidence which the media simply cannot or will not convey.
(4) Steve Benen at The Carpetbagger Report has some thorough analysis on the U.S. News and World Report article reporting on the "discussions" within the Bush Administration to engage in warrantless physical searches of homes in America based on the same theories of lawlessness which led them to eavesdrop on the communications of Americans without warrants. This should surprise nobody.
As I have pointed out many times, there is absolutely nothing unique to surveillance about the Administration's theories of power. They do not have a theory of surveillance. They have a theory of Presidential power which posits that the President can do anything relating to national security -- including against American citizens on U.S. soil -- without any restraints, including those imposed by law. That theory justifies warrantless physical searches along with a whole variety of other war powers on U.S. soil every bit as much as it justifies warrantless eavesdropping. That we have not yet had a real debate about how sweeping and radical those powers are is, by itself, its own scandal.
(5) The panel for yesterday's debate on To the Point regarding Sen. Feingold's Censure Resolution ended up being: John Dean, National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru, Matt Yglesias and me. The 45-minute segment can be heard here, under "Impeachment, Censure and Political Reality." Beginning at about the 15:00 minute mark, the debate becomes interactive and a little heated, arising out of: (a) Ponnuru's reciting of the conventional wisdom (squarely contradicted by the Republicans' actions) that the GOP wants the NSA scandal to continue to receive attention because it benefits them politically, and (b) his flatly inaccurate characterization of Feingold's resolution. The more strained and shrill Bush supporters become on this issue, the clearer it becomes just how threatening this scandal is to them.
UPDATE: Ramesh Ponnuru is apparently taking writing lesson from his colleague Jonah Goldberg, who refers to Bush opponents in the LA Times as "moonbats." In a petulant little item in the Corner today, Ponnuru explains that I'm a "moonbat" and that he is replying to the item above on my "moonbat site."
On its face, the Feingold Resolution seeks to censure the President for breaking the law and for deceiving Americans about the program, not for "defending" the program as Ponnuru falsely claimed, both on the radio yesterday and again today in the Corner. Here is the full text (.pdf) of the Resolution. There are two components and two components only to the censure -- the illegal nature of Bush's program and his patterns of deceit when speaking about the program. Bush "defended" his program in multiple ways and the censure resolution -- contrary to Ponnuru's false claims -- does not seek to censure him for doing so. The Resolution seeks to censure him only for ordering an unlawful program and then deceiving Americans about the program.
I have documented before that the Administration is incapable of responding to this Resolution without purposely distorting what it actually says. Just today, Ponnuru's colleague, Byron York, reports on a new RNC ad called "Censure" which contains this passage:
But some Democrats are working against these efforts to secure our country, opposing the PATRIOT Act and terrorist surveillance program.
Their leader is Russ Feingold.
Now Feingold and other Democrats want to censure the President.
Publicly reprimanding President Bush for pursuing suspected members of al Qaeda. . . .
Is this how Democrats plan to win the War on Terror?
Is it even necessary at this point to explain why that is so intolerably misleading and just outright false? Is Russ Feingold, by any reasonable interpretation, seeking to censure the President "for pursuing suspected members of al Qaeda" rather than for violating the law? What does it say about our media that the RNC (and Ponnuru) think they can get away with such complete mischaracterizations of a very straightforward and clear issue?
UPDATE II: My post at C&L is now up here.
YEAH! Give 'em hell Glenn -- spot on about the "shrillness" being a sign that they are terrified that they will actually be held accountable.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIntersting, cuz they have dodged so many...
ReplyDeleteTheft of 2000, manipulation of 9/11, enron and worldcom scandles, lying this country into an illegal war of conquest, use of DU weapons, fraudlent reports on economy, deficits, swiftboating TANG AWOL and Kerry, theft of 2004, Social Security Bamzooble, Medicare, Ohio corruption, TREASONGATE, gannon/guckert, civil war in iraq...
We could go on and on, all essentially swept under the rug.
Is it the cummulative effect or is the spying thing just that important?
Jennifer Nix isn't building anything particularly novel, she's simply acquiring books by online celebrities instead of other celebrities. That's a very wise business model for a small publisher, but I think we ought to take a step back from the hype.
ReplyDeleteI also hope you (especially as you're a lawyer) worked with a literary agent before signing a contract.
Buzzkill ("Jealous Much?") McGee
Fair comment from 'Buzzkill', but let's also keep in mind Regency isn't anything particularly novel either (although some its releases bear more resemblence to fiction than reality).
ReplyDeleteI think Jennifer is carving out a semi-new 'niche' market, albeit one with critical relevance to today that it stands a good chance of succeeding.
IMPORTANT ARTICLE BY GREG PALAST:
ReplyDeleteBUSH DIDN'T BUNGLE IRAQ, YOU FOOLS
THE MISSION WAS INDEED ACCCOMPLISHED
Get off it. All the carping, belly-aching and complaining about George Bush's incompetence in Iraq, from both the Left and now the Right, is just dead wrong.
On the third anniversary of the tanks rolling over Iraq's border, most of the 59 million Homer Simpsons who voted for Bush are beginning to doubt if his mission was accomplished.
But don't kid yourself -- Bush and his co-conspirator, Dick Cheney, accomplished exactly what they set out to do. In case you've forgotten what their real mission was, let me remind you of White House spokesman Ari Fleisher's original announcement, three years ago, launching of what he called,
"Operation
Iraqi
Liberation."
O.I.L. How droll of them, how cute. Then, Karl Rove made the giggling boys in the White House change it to "OIF" -- Operation Iraqi Freedom. But the 101st Airborne wasn't sent to Basra to get its hands on Iraq's OIF.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=483&row=0
Because most that proclaim they are "liberal" enable the demonization of the "L" word by refusing to talk about economic issues; chimpy and gang have been able to pull of fraud and theft from the American people of an astonishing proportion.
This is not at all about "competence" -- as if a war for the oil companies and the resulting war crimes and crimes against humnanity would be OK if it was just more "efficient" or "competently" executed.
Disappointing to see intellegent people blog about this administration without talking about the excesses and crimes being a MEANS to an unacceptable END!
The root issues are all economic, but most of the "advertise liberally" crowd activiley enables the castration of the democratic party by taking the issues that have historically been its base off the table.
Jennifer Nix isn't building anything particularly novel, she's simply acquiring books by online celebrities instead of other celebrities. That's a very wise business model for a small publisher, but I think we ought to take a step back from the hype.
ReplyDeleteI understand this sentiment, but I don't think it's true. I think there are lots of aspects to what she is doing that are unique, including: the means of how the book is developed, how quickly it's delivered to the market, the economics of it, the type of marketing that she wants to use, the way in which the marketing will be driven by political impact rather than book sales, the attempt to bring the discussions and energy in the blogosphere specifically to a wider audience.
It may be that parts of this are economically motivated (which wouldn't, by itself, make it non-unique), but I know for certain that parts of it aren't. After the Lakoff book did so ridiculously well, she was besieged by all kinds of extremely lucrative offers to have her own imprint, etc. She turned them all down becasue she believes that what she's doing will have a real impact in a way that publishing through large publishing companies won't enable. Obviously, for a book to have an impact, it has to find an audience, which means figuring out a way to sell it. But that doesn't negate the fact that significant parts of her content and marketing plans are unique both in terms of the ideas she wants to develop and the ways in which she wants to deliver them.
The more strained and shrill Bush supporters become on this issue, the clearer it becomes just how threatening this scandal is to them.
ReplyDeleteAmen.
Ponnuru is so glib. These guys are really the Ivory Tower types they paint liberals to be. The tone of his voice alone and the bearly restrained laughter in his comments shows nothing but contempt for the entire process. I mean how intellectually dishonest can you be and still be invited to all the intellectual's tea parties. I listen to guys like him and I wonder how they get the respect of even their own children.
ReplyDeleteGlenn:
ReplyDelete(4) Steve Benen at The Carpetbagger Report has some thorough analysis on the U.S. News and World Report article reporting on the "discussions" within the Bush Administration to engage in warrantless physical searches of homes in America based on the same theories of lawlessness which led them to eavesdrop on the communications of Americans without warrants. This should surprise nobody.
There is no difference under Article I and the 4th Amendment between physical searches and electronic surveillance.
If you are targeting foreign groups and their agents in the United States for intelligence gathering and not to obtain evidence in a criminal trial, then the 4th Amendment does not apply.
If, on the other hand, you are targeting US residents without any known connection to foreign groups or foreign agents for the purposes of obtaining criminal evidence, then the 4th Amendment applies.
You are being too generous in crediting Mr. Bush with this legal precedent. Presidents have been doing this for decades. The most recent example which made the press was Mr. Clinton's warrantless physical search of the home of Aldrich Ames, an American citizen acting as the agent of a foreign power.
Glenn, The story about Mearsheimer and Walt is quite huge. Their article is well-documented and written. (See Helena Cobban's discussion of it)
ReplyDeleteI've sent this article to RAWStory as a link and they have not yet published it (as far as I know), confirming perhaps one of the main points made by these two scholars.
It should also be noted that Hilary Clinton has publicly said that US foreign policy is inextricably bound up with the fate and objectives of Israel.
Glenn,
ReplyDelete(Your link to the New York Sun does not work.)
As far as Powerline and InstaHypocrite condemning any association with racist David Duke, we might note that it didn’t stop the Republican Party from paying him $82,000 for his mailing list.
Now why do you suppose the Republican Party so desperately wanted the names of all those racists?
And why was Duke chairman of the Republican Party in St. Tammany Parish, the county that he carried twice for elections to the U.S. Senate and Governor.?
Nothing to see here folks, just move on…….
The finalists for the Wampum Kofaux blog awards have been chosen,....
ReplyDeleteFreudian slip, perchance? Might want to fix this before they delist you for impugning their character.... ;-)
Cheers,
If you are targeting foreign groups and their agents in the United States for intelligence gathering and not to obtain evidence in a criminal trial, then the 4th Amendment does not apply.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court has never ruled on this. The closest they came was when they held in the 1972 Keith case that the 4th Amendment DID apply to bar warrantless surveillance of Americans for investigations of domestic terrorist groups.
You are being too generous in crediting Mr. Bush with this legal precedent. Presidents have been doing this for decades. The most recent example which made the press was Mr. Clinton's warrantless physical search of the home of Aldrich Ames, an American citizen acting as the agent of a foreign power.
Any warrantless physical searches done by the Clinton Administration, or any other Administration, were conducted before it was illegal to do so - i.e., before FISA was applied to physical searches. Once it was so applied, the Clinton Administraiton no longer engaged in such warrantless searches, whereas the Bush Administration did.
That's the difference between a President who abides by the law and a President who breaks the law.
Zack and Arne - Fixed the link and the typo, respectively. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI see Bart has made a tactical redeployment to this thread. Probably a smart move on his part.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I'm a bit of a dullard here, but what exactly does the Aims case (where you have a US government employee also in the employ of a foreign government and passing along classified materials to said foreign government) have to do with the issue at hand: to whit, the President knowingly and deliberately ignoring set law to conduct surveillence on unspecified targets that may or may not result in prosecution?
Ramesh was shrill personified, really unbelievable. Great job, Glenn.
ReplyDeletePonnuru gave us a good look at a some of the Repub spin on this issue.
ReplyDeleteTheir main strategy will be to conflate the censure and illegal warrantless eavesdropping issue with criticisms and critics of Bush that they feel are perceived as extreme. Ponnuru was looking for every opportunity to say "impeachment", even though it was the censure motion that was being discussed. He also mentioned the "lying us into war" charge (Bush really should be impeached, he says, if you really believe that happened), and tried to paint Feingold as extreme ("the trifecta of weakness on national security"), etc. At no time did Ponnuru attempt to deny, in the slightest, that Bush was breaking the law. These guys will avoid the actual issue at all costs.
And of course you'll hear them on Fox invoking the names of the usual group of "left-wing whack-jobs" when they discuss censure (Moore, Moveon.org, Soros... see various comments from "The Dog", for example). Again, all the while avoiding the issue.
And Ramesh really seemed to think he had something with this "their own strongest advocates don't want a vote on this" meme, which he used obliviously even after Glen had refuted it. Everytime he went to it, he was cackling loudly as he said it, something that Ponnuru really needs to avoid if he's to have any future in radio or tv. Seriously, he sounded like a 7 yr old girl at a slumber party.
Glenn, thanks for all of your excellent work. Been reading the site for a couple of months now, and I'm always impressed at the quality of your writing, the clarity of your arguments, and the general lack of sniping and ad hominems. But most of all I appreciate your well-articulated and deeply felt love for our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Thank you for standing up and speaking clearly in its defense!
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, I've written a draft of a statement that addresses a possible evangelical Christian response to the NSA program and exectuive branch over-reach. Some of the legal phraseology needs refinement.
ReplyDeleteHuh. Just read the post about your book for the first time (I'm on vacation) -- congratulations, nicely done, and I can't wait to read it.
ReplyDeletenuf said: a shorter more user-friendly version was printed in the London Review of Books. As Cobban notes, they tried to get this published in the US, but no papers would.
ReplyDeleteGlenn Greenwald said...
ReplyDeleteBart: If you are targeting foreign groups and their agents in the United States for intelligence gathering and not to obtain evidence in a criminal trial, then the 4th Amendment does not apply.
The Supreme Court has never ruled on this.
You are correct. The Supremes denied cert on every appeal from the courts of appeals decisions which did make this holding. These holdings are the law of the land.
If you think that the Roberts court is likely to reverse this precedent when the much more liberal Burger court declined to do so, you are engaging in some serious wishful thinking.
Bart: You are being too generous in crediting Mr. Bush with this legal precedent. Presidents have been doing this for decades. The most recent example which made the press was Mr. Clinton's warrantless physical search of the home of Aldrich Ames, an American citizen acting as the agent of a foreign power.
Any warrantless physical searches done by the Clinton Administration, or any other Administration, were conducted before it was illegal to do so - i.e., before FISA was applied to physical searches. Once it was so applied, the Clinton Administraiton no longer engaged in such warrantless searches, whereas the Bush Administration did.
I see that your outrage over legislation to ratify past acts of the President is selective indeed.
In the Ames case, DOJ authorized the physical search of Ames car and home without a judicial warrant based on the President's Article II power.
When Ames was charged and this search came to light, there was a firestorm of allegations that this search was a violation of the 4th Amendment.
What made this more interesting is that Justice was planning on offering evidence gained in these searches at Ames criminal trial, which was probably illegal under the precedent which I have cited.
Justice finessed this evidentiary problem by blackmailing Ames into a plea bargain by charging his wife.
Then, the Clinton Administration worked to get FISA expanded to include physical searches. However, Clinton expressly reserved his Article II power for foreign surveillance. Somewhat similar to the Specter bill concerning the NSA Program, Clinton merely wanted FISA to ratify searches he conducted pursuant to his Article II power without restricting that power.
In her statement on behalf of the Clinton DOJ to Congress concerning this amendment to FISA, Jamie Gorelick stated:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
You have asked for my views on the provision of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s counterintelligence bill that establishes a procedure for court orders approving physical searches conducted in the United States for foreign intelligence purposes.
At the outset, let me emphasize two very important points. First, the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.
Second, the Administration and the Attorney General support, in principle, legislation establishing judicial warrant procedures under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for physical searches undertaken for intelligence purposes. However, whether specific legislation on this subject is desirable for the practical benefits it might add to intelligence collection, or undesirable as too much of a restriction on the President’s authority to collect intelligence necessary for the national security, depends on how the legislation is crafted...
As I stated earlier, we believe that existing directives that regulate the basis for seeking foreign intelligence search authority and the procedures to be followed satisfy all Constitutional requirements. Nevertheless, I reiterate the Administration’s willingness to support appropriate legislation that does not restrict the President’s ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security. We need to strike a balance that sacrifices neither our security nor our civil liberties.
> http://thinkprogress.org/gorelick-testimony/
i have written elsewhere and earlier that, in my view,
ReplyDeletethe central characters in the rush to war with iraq constitute an israeli fifth-column operating within the united states government.
among the individuals whose activities i believe merit this recognistion are
richard pearle, paul wolfowitz, michael ledeen, douglas fieth.
this list from off the top of my head.
with a bit more time i could list several others associated with the office of the vice president and with ambassador john bolton.
this israeli fifth-column
has essentially operated as a leech-like or paramecium-like parasite would in a host - using the energy and capacity of the host to serve its own needs for food and safety, without regard to the consequendces for the host.
in the context of this discusssion and of ggr's comments above,
note that "israel" is a country.
"israel" is not a religion or an ethnic group.
On the issue of the pro-Israel lobby stranglehold on the US MSM and Congress, see the commentary at War in Context
ReplyDeleteorionatl: has essentially operated as a leech-like or paramecium-like parasite would in a host - using the energy and capacity of the host to serve its own needs for food and safety, without regard to the consequendces for the host.
ReplyDeleteI find this overblown hyperbole repugnant and tragically redolent of Nazi propagaganda and anti-semitism. You would be best served, I think, by steering clear of such biological rhetoric and stick to the statements that reflect a just and sober assessment of the facts, as Mearsheimer and Walt do.
Perhaps I'm a bit of a dullard here, but what exactly does the Aims case (where you have a US government employee also in the employ of a foreign government and passing along classified materials to said foreign government) have to do with the issue at hand: to whit, the President knowingly and deliberately ignoring set law to conduct surveillence on unspecified targets that may or may not result in prosecution?
ReplyDeletePresident Clinton was operating in a national security context, his primary goal being to determine and prevent harm to the country, not to prosecute Mr. Ames. At the time, and as Bart is fully aware, FISA did not apply to physical searches in the national security context. FISA was amended in the mid-90s to include a FISA warrant requirement for purposes of national security, physical searches, just as it long had applied to surveillance of electronic communications.
Clinton, by all reports, immediately came into compliance with that law.
As I've noted before, this article posted over at Free Republic -- Robert Bork on Civil Liberties after 9/11 -- explains that before FISA, Presidents operated within a legally shaky framework, and FISA was, as Bork writes, seen as a "solution" (my emphasis):
Prior to 1978, and dating back at least to World War II, attorneys general of the United States routinely authorized warrantless FBI surveillance, wire taps, and break-ins for national-security purposes. Such actions were taken pursuant to authority delegated by the President as commander-in-chief of the armed forces and as the officer principally responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs. The practice was justified because obtaining a warrant in each disparate case resulted in inconsistent standards and also posed unacceptable risks. (In one notorious instance, a judge had read aloud in his courtroom from highly classified material submitted to him by the government; even under more conscientious judges, clerks, secretaries, and others were becoming privy to secret materials.)
Attorneys general were never entirely comfortable with these warrantless searches, whose legality had never been confirmed by the Supreme Court. The solution in 1978 was the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Henceforth, sitting district court judges would conduct secret hearings to approve or disapprove government applications for surveillance.
Until George Bush. With him, henceforth the law is what he says it is.
Ram Ponnuru really makes me nervous.
ReplyDeleteLike his pal, Dinesh, Ram displays an underlying nastiness and mean-spirited attitude that reminds one of certain individuals in "To Kill A Mockingbird."
One gets the idea that Ram, if given the opportunity, would not merely end the life of a mockingbird - or a political opponent. Instead, Ram would simply nuke any and all of his political foes in the name of making the world safe from the terrorist threats of those who dare voice a contrary opinion, not to mention mockingbirds.
If Ram keeps up this line of vicious behavior, I suggest he change his name to J.P. Normanson, II and/or start calling his mother Lucianne.
Ram Ponnuru, he's on our side. (I think.)
Ira
I have really agreed with, and enjoyed reading your blog over the past month; however, I feel as though I must comment now. Israel enjoys many supporters, not just neo-cons. To criticize Israel's democracy on the basis of being a Jewish State shows an inherent bias towards Jewish People. Throughout history, even modern history, with Wilson's 14 points highlighting self-determination, why should the Jewish people not enjoy a state just like many other nationalaties or ethnic groups? The 1.3 million Arabs who live in Israel do enjoy equal rights, it is a common myth of leftist academia to declare otherwise.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, to say that helping Israel angers Arabs so it should not be done is absolutely ridiculous. Why should we stop helping a country on the basis that a group irrationally has aimed for the destruction of Israel since Day 1. The neighborly hatred of Israel long predates the "Palestinian Conflict." In fact, it predates the word Palestinian, and predates the nation of Israel itself. The US even declined to recognize Israel at first because Truman and his administration were so sure that the Arab "neighbors" would push the country into the sea. These arguments against Israel are skewed by the left's admiration with "causes" such as the Palestinians, while ignoring the entire historical context of the situation.
In regards to the funding, people don't even acknowledge the fact that Israel receives a significant portion of it for their WILLINGNESS to make peace. This portion is matched by how much Egypt recieves, as Egypt would not have made peace with Israel had it not been for this "contribution" from the US. In fact, Egypt is the second largest recipient of aid. We obviously don't give as much military aid to Egypt as we do to Israel, as even within the past couple of years, Egypt's defense minister called for a million man army to destroy Israel for good.
When I was going to protests against the Iraqi War three years ago, I got fed up with how many people tied the anti-war movement with the anti-Israel movement. It made me stop going. People love their conspiracy theories, but there's much more to this war than Israel. Let's focus on the real issues, like Bush's unprecedented usurption of power within our Constitutional framework.
Dear Mr. Ponnuru:
ReplyDeleteBruce Fein, Bob Barr, George Will, Orin Kerr, Glenn Greenwald, me (who voted twice for Ronald Reagan).
We're all moonbats, now.
offpeak34: I have always wondered how much of that taxpayer money that you say goes for peace actually helps Israel develop its nuclear stockpile. I once heard a Congressman asked this question and he sat dumbfounded for a moment and then said he didn't know. This is one of the ugly secrets of the rhetoric behind the question of Iran's push for nuclear technology. While the US says they can't have it, they pass over in silence this very basic fact of Israel's WMDs.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, I believe the President just the other day acknowledged that Israel does have these weapons--a significant statement (slip-up?) since Israel neither acknowledges nor allows that stockpile to be discussed. This policy has been followed by the US govt. until now(?).
It is significant to note that while Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty, Israel has not. No doubt, this is because of their collusion with South African fascists to develop their own nuclear arsenal--a program that Mandela killed whne he came to office.
Israel enjoys many supporters, not just neo-cons. To criticize Israel's democracy on the basis of being a Jewish State shows an inherent bias towards Jewish People. Throughout history, even modern history, with Wilson's 14 points highlighting self-determination, why should the Jewish people not enjoy a state just like many other nationalaties or ethnic groups? The 1.3 million Arabs who live in Israel do enjoy equal rights, it is a common myth of leftist academia to declare otherwise.
ReplyDeleteNone of this has anything to do with the point I made. I was not defending or disagreeing with the actual arguments made by the Professors. I specifically said there was much in it that one could quite reasonably dispute.
What I object to is the practice of equating criticism with Israel, U.S. policy towards Israel and/or criticism of neoconservatism with anti-semitism, which is a way of shutting down debate and shielding these matters from criticism. It is true that there are people who make those arguments who likely are driven by anti-Semitic impulses (such as the commenter with the leech and parasite rhetoric), but there are many people who make those arguments who are not anti-Semitic in the slightest (just as there are some people who oppose affirmative action for racist reasons and some who oppose it for totally non-racist reasons).
I find it objectionable whenever slurs and character smears of this type are used to intimidate people away from talking about important matters. I'd ask that you wait until my post is available before responding further because it sets out my rationale a lot more thoroughly than this preview post did.
Glen,
ReplyDeleteA minor request: Would it be possible to timestamp the update?
Most of your posts include an update at some point. Sometimes these updates shift the conversation in comments. Time stamping the update would clarify comments up a bit.
Thanks so much for you contribution to political discourse and dialog. I can't wait for your book!
Glenn, I listened to the radio show yesterday and I was really impressed with how well you and some of the other guests made your points, and how terribly Ramesh Ponnuru made his.
ReplyDeletePonnuru really came off sounding like a whiny loser who had no place participating in an intelligent discussion with adults. He did his side no favors in the debate.
Maybe he'd be better off sticking to shows like Bill O'Reilly or Hannity and Colmes, where bombast, whining, and ad hominem attacks are seen as an acceptable substitute for real discussion of the issues.
Why soft-pedal it Glenn?
ReplyDeleteThe RNC add isn't a "mischaracterization". It's an outright lie!
Ponnuru's "petulant little piece" is really the perfect follow-on to his petulant little performance on Olney's show. And he scores a "trifecta" of his own: he mischaracterizes the resolution, mischaracterizes Dean's statement about whether Bush has committed impeachable offenses (Dean specifically said, "by the standards that have been set recently for high crimes and misdemeanors"... we all know what that refers to), and comes off as a total jack_ss by using the term "moonbat".
ReplyDeleteAll in one short paragraph. Very impressive.
mds writes: Sorry, hypatia, since I believe you're a fan of Mr. Bork.
ReplyDeleteI was at one time, but that ceased to be so most decisively when his Slouching Toward Gomorrah screed came out some 10 yrs ago. I believe-- and the idea is not original with me -- that he became a bit unhinged after what happened to him in the confirmation hearings, and that his subsequent hatred for the left and Democrats has pushed him far more authoritarian rightward than he previously had been. All of his prior strains of libertarianism have evaporated.
But anyway, whatever else may be wrong with Bork's article I linked to, he accurately describes the state of the law wrt presidential authority and the "solution" of FISA.
Hypatia said...
ReplyDeletePresident Clinton was operating in a national security context, his primary goal being to determine and prevent harm to the country, not to prosecute Mr. Ames.
Really? I suppose that is why Justice and the FBI as opposed to the NSA was conducting the search. Much of the evidence against Mr. Ames was gained as a result of that warrantless search.
As I've noted before, this article posted over at Free Republic -- Robert Bork on Civil Liberties after 9/11 -- explains that before FISA, Presidents operated within a legally shaky framework, and FISA was, as Bork writes, seen as a "solution" (my emphasis):
Prior to 1978, and dating back at least to World War II, attorneys general of the United States routinely authorized warrantless FBI surveillance, wire taps, and break-ins for national-security purposes. Such actions were taken pursuant to authority delegated by the President as commander-in-chief of the armed forces and as the officer principally responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs. The practice was justified because obtaining a warrant in each disparate case resulted in inconsistent standards and also posed unacceptable risks. (In one notorious instance, a judge had read aloud in his courtroom from highly classified material submitted to him by the government; even under more conscientious judges, clerks, secretaries, and others were becoming privy to secret materials.)
Attorneys general were never entirely comfortable with these warrantless searches, whose legality had never been confirmed by the Supreme Court. The solution in 1978 was the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Henceforth, sitting district court judges would conduct secret hearings to approve or disapprove government applications for surveillance.
As usual, Judge Bork gives a good overview of the facts of the case.
As I posted before, Presidents have "routinely authorized warrantless FBI surveillance, wire taps, and break-ins for national-security purposes." There is nothing remotely novel about this exercise of this Article II power.
The AGs wanted FISA to obtain warrants so they could admit the resulting evidence in criminal prosecutions. The case law which authorized warrantless searches of agents of foreign groups also questions whether evidence gained through such searches could be admitted at a criminal trial of the target. However, Judge Bork noted why Judges in open court could not be trusted to maintain operational security when warrant requests were made. Thus, a secret court was set up.
I am new to the blogging world and was turned on to your site by my son. I have a lot of admiration for your work and admire your stands. I have to tell you though that I strongly disagree with your post of today.
ReplyDeleteThe article by the 2 professors basically say that the pro-Israel lobby with it's huge financial and political resources are running American foreign policy. Now you say that it is their right to say that without being accused of anti-Semitism. I say there are many who talk like this to cloak their anti-Semitism.
Throughout the years that kind of dribble is used as a cover for anti-Semites to with politically correct language spew their venom. It's no different than traditional anti-Semites who said that the Jews control the media, and the Jews control the banks. Would you make the same argument for their rights to say that?
Academia is notoriously anti-Israel and I don't think it's wrong to call them out on it when they spew their stuff. If there is ever a place to with comfort speak against Israel today is in University settings. That climate on campus is very well pointed out by Alan Dershowitz in his book The Case for Israel.
Israel and the US have had many conflicts in foreign policy and in no way should the Iraq war be blamed on those who are pro-Israel and this article tries to do that with inferences. Yes neo-cons are pro Israel but not everyone who is pro Israel is a new-con.
The neo-cons like Israel not because they are Zionists but because they view Israel as an ally in what they are trying to accomplish in the Middle East. The fact that Arabs don't like that well too bad for them. This article tries to say we make Arab enemies by being pro-Israel. Well does that mean we should run our foreign policy to appease that racist view?
"None of this has anything to do with the point I made. I was not defending or disagreeing with the actual arguments made by the Professors. I specifically said there was much in it that one could quite reasonably dispute."
ReplyDeleteI totally understand what you are saying, and I agree that people should be able to have an academic discussion about the subject; however, I felt motivated to respond when someone referred to Israel as a "parasite." There is a very fine line between an academic discussion on the matter and anti-Semitism itself. The "Jewish Conspiracy" and the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" have a very similar message and are clearly based on anti-Semitism. Saying Israel dominates American policy is much along those lines. But yes, I very much agree with you that academic debate is important on any matter of U.S. policy. Thanks for your response and best of luck with the book! I am very excited to read it.
Recognizing all that, I am afraid that you may have sold yourself far too cheaply.
ReplyDeleteDavid - We keep having the same conversation. Al Gore stood with Bob Barr even though Barr was the Impeachment Manager for Clinton's impeachment and Barr was also the primary sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act. I think that DOMA is one of the most disgusting and ill-advised pieces of legislation ever - not just for the codified discrimination but also for the federalism issues - but I would stand with Bob Barr in a second in defense of the constitution against this Administration.
My goal is to have the arguments I am making persuade as many people as possible as to the dangers and radical theories of this Administration? Who do you think is pure enough to accomplish that? HarperCollins? Simon & Schuster? Random House? Do I really need to list the crap that they publish?
Publishers are vehicles for ideas, nothing more. And if a publisher approaches me with a plan that I believe in to get my ideas to as many people as possible - and they convince me that they believe in those ideas - why would I possibly care who else they publish? I can't say it any better than Hypatia said it in the other thread:
But why should his book not succeed on its own merits, but better, with the assistance of a publisher who is ardently convinced of the importance of his message? Nothing in the book's title or cover design suggest that Glenn has become a spokesman for International A.N.S.W.E.R., and he and Ms. Nix have both indicated that his book will decidedly not be addressed merely to "liberals" or the left. They are negotiating with a well-know conservative to write the preface.
I value and own some books published by Regnery. But they have also published some things I find deplorable, such as the anti-evolution, Intelligent Design crap spit out by Jonathan Wells and Phillip Johnson. But I do not, and no one should, associate every other Regnery author with devious sellers of snake oil like the IDists.
My point is, it doesn't mater what you think of Kos. Glenn has written his own, separate book, and has behind him a publisher who has the demonstrated ability to propel it into large readership. That is good for Glenn, and given the subject of his book, good for the country.
Mr. Greenwald and his site are not moonbats? Let’s check the definition at Wikipedia:
ReplyDelete“The terms (sic) was originally rendered as 'Barking Moonbat', suggesting that certain issue (sic) seem to trigger a reflexive response from some people much like wolves howl at the moon (i.e. the term evokes the traditional association between the moon and insanity)...a moonbat is someone on the extreme edge of whatever their -ism happens to be.”
Let’s check Mr. Greenwald’s most recent post:
“...he [Bush] has been exercising ... law-breaking power aggressively and enthusiastically ... radically changing our national political character and the system of government that we have had since our founding...irrefutable proof that we cannot rely on our national media to inform Americans as to what our Government is doing...”
Hmmmmm.
Back to Wikipedia: “Moonbat {is] frequently used to describe those ... who believe in conspiracy theories. Examples include those who believe that ...the US invaded Iraq ... under the directions of Israel.”
Mr. Greenwald says:
“My first post at C&L... concerns ... a new report... which...contains “a searing attack on the role and power of Washington's pro-Israel lobby . . . ,[my emphasis] warning that its 'decisive' role in fomenting the Iraq war is now being repeated with the threat of action against Iran.”
Hmmmm. Case closed.
I have a lot of admiration for your work and admire your stands. I have to tell you though that I strongly disagree with your post of today.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate that. I know that it is impossible to write anything about Israel without making a lot of people disagree with you - usually vehemently. That's why most people are afraid to write about it (I'm still not sure that C&L is going to put my post up). I accepted when I wrote the post that a lot of people who agree wiht me on other things would not agree with me on this.
That's OK - I think it's an important to make and so I made it.
The article by the 2 professors basically say that the pro-Israel lobby with it's huge financial and political resources are running American foreign policy. Now you say that it is their right to say that without being accused of anti-Semitism. I say there are many who talk like this to cloak their anti-Semitism.
I agree COMPLETELY that there are many people who talk like this to cloak their anti-semitism and I said so in the post (it's a little weird that we're talking about my argument in a post that's not up yet, but that's probably my fault for previewing it). But it's NOT the case that to make the claim that the Israeli lobby exerts too much influence on our foreign policy is INHERENTLY anti-Semitic. The extent to which other governments or domestic influences exert influence on our government MUST be a legitimate issue open to discussion, and it should be no different when the influence in question is Israeli.
What you said is true for lots of issues. Some people oppose affirmative action for racist reasons, but many do not. Some people oppose immigration for racist reasons, but many do not. Some people advocate for Palestinian rights for anti-Semitic reasons, but many do not. A viewpoint isn't beyond the pale of legitimacy just because some people advocate that view with bad motives. If that were enough to render a viewpoint forbidden, very few viewpoints would be allowed.
The neo-cons like Israel not because they are Zionists but because they view Israel as an ally in what they are trying to accomplish in the Middle East. The fact that Arabs don't like that well too bad for them. This article tries to say we make Arab enemies by being pro-Israel. Well does that mean we should run our foreign policy to appease that racist view?
There are all legitimate responses to the Professors' arguments. And I think we should have this debate. Does our alliance with Israel hurt our standing in the Muslim world? Does it increase the likelihood of a terrorist attack? Even if it does, should that matter? Should we abandon an ally just because some Muslims get angry at our alliance or it helps with terrorist recruiting? Are those premises even true?
Those are all issues worth discussing. The problem is that they can't be discussed because one side of the debate constantly hurls accusations of bigotry and anti-semitism at the other side, making the debate impossible -in large part because so many people become afraid of even engaging the discussion.
There is too much at stake in our foreign policy choices to have these issues off limits. As I've said many times (and probably will have to say a few more times), I am NOT defending the substance of the Professors' arguments (some I agree with, many I don't), only that their making the arguments does not make them anti-Semitic, and these issues ought to be discussed in the open.
offpeak34 said...
ReplyDeleteI have really agreed with, and enjoyed reading your blog over the past month; however, I feel as though I must comment now. Israel enjoys many supporters, not just neo-cons. To criticize Israel's democracy on the basis of being a Jewish State shows an inherent bias towards Jewish People. Throughout history, even modern history, with Wilson's 14 points highlighting self-determination, why should the Jewish people not enjoy a state just like many other nationalaties or ethnic groups? The 1.3 million Arabs who live in Israel do enjoy equal rights, it is a common myth of leftist academia to declare otherwise.
Please note, no one is taking issue with Israel, the Jewish State, or with the people of Israel. The issue is with the profound influence of the Israeli lobbying group/s in Washington. I suspect the heart of this criticism goes to what we already know about the powerful lobbying groups that have influence in Washington that are home grown; i.e. the defense industrial complex and the oil companies.
Indeed, notherbob2. Case closed.
ReplyDeleteGlenn and company are definitely *not* "moonbats".
More like very serious researchers and commentators. Pity there isn't short-hand phrase of people like that.
Oh, wait. There is:
"Reality-based".
re: Moonbats.
ReplyDeleteThis would seem obvious to most but ...
The name-calling technique links a person, or idea, to a negative symbol. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative symbol, instead of looking at the available evidence.
A viewpoint isn't beyond the pale of legitimacy just because some people advocate that view with bad motives. If that were enough to render a viewpoint forbidden, very few viewpoints would be allowed
ReplyDeleteOk well how about the argument then that the Jews controlled the media. It is an undeniable fact that at one point in our history CBS news had Jews in charge, and a Jewish families published of the NY Times and other papers.
Does that mean then that the Jews controlled the media is beyond the pale of legitimacy?
To me to say that the pro-Israel lobby has too much control in our foreign policy is in the same vain.
re: Ramesh Ponnuru (and the President's response to Carl Cameron at his Press Conference this morning)
ReplyDeleteThis is TBTP (The BIG Talking Point) that the right knows will effectively dispatch (confuse) the wiretap issue with the American people: anyone criticizing the administration for this policy is, in effect, preventing us from protecting ourselves from the "terrorists, out there, somewhere, hiding, lurking, waiting".
It's effective because it allows them to maintain that fear and patriotism trump lawlessness. And as we all know, fear and patriotism are extemely powerful notions that stir people up and easily cloud judgement and thinking.
The problem is that they can't be discussed because one side of the debate constantly hurls accusations of bigotry and anti-semitism at the other side, making the debate impossible -in large part because so many people become afraid of even engaging the discussion.
ReplyDeleteThe civil rights movement in the U.S., including those agitating for repeal of Jim Crow, was hampered by the fact that among the most potent sectors in its early years was the Communist Party. You can learn that from reading this bio sketch of one-time CPUSA member and black civil rights activist, Bayard Rustin. Racist advocates of retaining Jim Crow made a huge and, for a time, effective deal out of the fact that Stalin liked and backed the civil rights movement. (Not because his heart beat for the plight of American blacks, but because he wished to encourage political agitation and social unrest in America.)
Was Jim Crow right and good, because Stalin sent his domestic minions out to attack it? Or should its morality be judged on its own merits?
In general, I'm sympathetic to the State of Israel. But I'll listen to those who think America is too tightly bound to that country, even if David Duke also thinks so. But then, much as I despise communism and condemn American communists, I also think repealing Jim Crow was the only genuinely American route to take.
It's effective because it allows them to maintain that fear and patriotism trump lawlessness. And as we all know, fear and patriotism are extemely powerful notions that stir people up and easily cloud judgement and thinking.
ReplyDeleteYep
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." - Nazi Reichsmarshall Herman Goering
"Oh, and I have a couple of questions for everyone jumping on the "anti-Semitic" bandwagon that has recently become a favorite accusation of conservatives:
ReplyDelete(1) Why does your "pro-Semitic" political movement rely so strongly upon a base of premillenial dispensationalists who avidly await the day when the majority of Jews in the world will be slaughtered, and the remnant converted to Christianity?
(2) Is the Israeli Labor Party anti-Semitic? Because a great deal of the criticism of Israel's influence on American foreign policy is actually criticism of the Likud Party's influence on American foreign policy. American neoconservatives were much likelier to enjoy jolly lunches with Mr. Netanyahu or Mr. Sharon than Mr. Rabin. " I can't figure out how to italicize in html...sorry about that.
I am neither conservative nor neo-conservative. Within Israel I am in pro-Labor. One of the appeals of the Israeli political system to me is its socialist history and the kibbutz. Where do you find this link between conservatism and labelling people anti-Semitic? Most Jewish people vote Democratic and fall to the left on the spectrum of ideologies. In fact, many Jewish people were derided as communists during the Cold War--remember the Rosenbergs? People are labelled as anti-Semites when they promote arguments propogated by the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." The "Jewish Conspiracy" to dominate the world has been used as the basis for attacks against the Jewish people during the Crusades, during the Holocaust and during the modern-day Holocaust denial movement (these people call themselves revisionist). Ever notice the close link between Holocaust revisionists and an anti-Israeli stance? There's a reason the two are so intertwined. There's a large movement within academia that appears an American college campuses claiming that Jewish people embelleshed the Holocaust in order to con the world into giving them land in the Middle East. Just hearing that argument once is sickening, try hearing it once a week in college. Imagine how frustrating that must get. Sorry Glenn to hijack the true topic once again, I just felt it necessary to respond.
I heard you moonbats called. And so soon too.
ReplyDeleteIf only the goddamn mother f-n dems could get their act together, we'd have an ad out talking about Bush breaking the law.
ReplyDeleteyou know, this new RNC ad -- while obviously idotic and dare I say it SHRILL -- accomplishes one other thing: raises Russ Feingold's profile even more. LOL, way to go RNC! Way to boost one of your potential opponents! Keep at it!
ReplyDeleteRuss needs to put a link to the ad on his website and start bragging about it -- and laughing about it at the same time. This is the only way to deal with this crap -- mock it.
The very use of the term”neo-con” has been condemned as Anti-Semitic (many examples) – that’s how touchy the issue Glenn raises today is.
ReplyDeleteThis is one topic no one can discuss in this country – it is off limits – why is that?
No criticism of Likkud policies will be tolerated in the U.S. – of course it’s okay to have these argument in Israel, but not here.
Are all the liberal Jews in my community (who almost all disagree with Bush’s policies) anti-Semitic? As soon as they criticize these policies, they are condemned as “self-hating Jews” which seems to be about the same as Americans who oppose Bush being labeled anti-American.
This is one topic that some people want to keep off limits, that’s for sure.
Ramesh Ponnuru is a fascist. The Corner is a fascist website.
ReplyDeleteAny wonder why the world considers this website a gathering place for moonbats?
Offpeak 34 avers: In fact, many Jewish people were derided as communists during the Cold War--remember the Rosenbergs?
ReplyDeleteUm, the Rosenbergs were Communists. And at least as to Julius, were spies for Joseph Stalin. Jewish people were disproportionately attracted to Communism in the U.S., for reasons that some of them have studied in a sociological context.
Emory historian Harvey Klehr recently addressed an NSA Cryptologists convention. Klehr has written multiple books in the last decade, after having analyzed Soviet diplomatic cables interecepted and decrypted by the U.S. in the 40s, and after having been allowed to research the archives of the former Soviet Union. His work, among that of many others, has left no room for reasonable doubt that the Rosnebergs, and others, were guilty. Said Klehr at the NSA convention:
[Progressive American historian ]Ellen Schrecker claimed in 2001 that nothing found in recently opened [KGB and other Soviet ]archives required “that the past 30 years of scholarship will need to be rewritten.” She recently changed her mind ...[and] confessed that “enough evidence about the KGB’s espionage operations had accumulated to convince most historians in the field, myself included” that more than 100 American communists had spied for the Soviet Union, including Alger Hiss, Julius Rosenberg ... Several historians have concluded that Soviet spies actually served the interests of the United States and humanity by helping to prevent World War III. Michael Parrish of the University of California San Diego endorsed Ted Hall’s rationale for giving the USSR atomic bomb secrets, that it prevented an American monopoly of nuclear weapons. “Who is to say that Hall’s decision and those of Fuchs, Morris Cohen, Rosenberg and the others who gave atomic secrets to the Soviets did not contribute significantly to what John Lewis Gaddis has called ‘the long peace’ that followed World War II? Would the United States have been as prudent in times of crisis in the absence of Soviet nuclear weapons? The world has not been a kinder and gentler place since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dismantling of its sphere of influence in Eastern Europe.”
Faced with overwhelming evidence that the Rosenberg's and others were guilty, the (self-described) leftist Schrecker issued one of the most repugnant apologias one can imagine, arguing that they just were not patriotic in a "traditional" way:
...the men and women who gave information to Moscow in the 1930s and 1940s did so for political, not pecuniary reasons. They were already committed to Communism and they viewed what they were doing as their contribution to the cause ... [and] ... it is important to realize that as Communists these people did not subscribe to traditional forms of patriotism; they were internationalists whose political allegiances transcended national boundaries. They thought they were ‘building .. a better world for the masses,’ not betraying their country.
[Ellen Schrecker, Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America (Boston: Little, Brown, 1998) , p. 181)]
offpeak34: Just a minor point. Consider Bibi Netanyahu's ( a Jewish millenialist) comments to a group of Christian millenialists:
ReplyDelete"The greatest support Israel has today is in the United States. And the greatest support Israel has in the US, besides the Jewish community, is that of Evangelical Christians," Netanyahu said at the monthly meeting of the Knesset's Christian Allies Caucus, which hosted Hagee on Monday.
You better watch out who you're slamming. Israel's friends at the Unity Coalition for Israel might get pissed.
I believe these are the same nice people who send out the America-Israel Friendship League Newsletter whose sole purpose--to me at least--is to show how alike Israelis are to "us Americans" and how "odd" those other folk in the mideast are.
Glenn, you do bark a lot, but you are too coherent to be regarded as a true moonbat.
ReplyDeletePretty sad when political opponents have to resort to name calling in order to appeal to people's emotions...
ReplyDeleteThis follows "fasteddie" and his well-articulated opinion...
Any wonder why the world considers "The Corner" a gathering place for fascist wingnuts bowing to the Cult of Bush? Frightened crybabies with pants still soiled from 9/11 wanting Sherrif Bush to get the "bad guys"?
And once again, we get a dose of scatology (soiled pants) from one of the resident moonbats. What is it with these constant references to defecation and urination?
Strange indeed, the moonbat universe.
...and right on schedule, just got this in my inbox from Feingold's PAC:
ReplyDeleteDear Amanda,
The President broke the law and he must be held accountable.
Thanks to you, and tens of thousands of others around the country, the President and his administration now realize that they're not going to get away with it any longer. A news report out this morning says that the Republican National Committee will run radio ads in my home state of Wisconsin, filled with the same scare tactics that they tried to use on me during my last election.
It didn't work then, and it won't work now.
To read the ad click here
Contrary to the spin from the President we heard once again today, this issue is not about whether the government should be wiretapping terrorists - of course it should, and it can under current law. The President simply refuses to follow that law.
And to show that progressives won't back down and that we'll stand up for the rule of law, the Constitution, and the rights and freedoms on which our country was founded, I'm asking for your help today.
According to the news report, these attack ads will begin airing this week on both Milwaukee and Madison radio stations. We must show the President and others that we will not be intimidated. So today I ask you to contribute $250, $150, $50 or whatever you can afford to the Progressive Patriots Fund as a show of support to help me raise the funds needed to help elect more progressive candidates across the country who won't back down to this Administration or the Washington nay-sayers.
Click here to contribute now
As Democrats, we must prove that we won't back down from a fight. We must stand up and stand together, and with one voice demand accountability from a President who has broken the law.
I'll never back down and I know you won't either.
Thanks again for your continued support.
Sincerely,
Russ Feingold
United States Senator
Honorary Chair, Progressive Patriots Fund
Don't be too hard on poor Ram Ponnuru.
ReplyDeleteHe's just taking his orders from Lucianne's Little Boy and J.P. Normanson. If Ram fails to follow the dictum of Lucianne's offspring and J.P. Normanson, Ram will lose his high-paying gig at National Review, PBS, and various assorted NeoCON think tanks in D.C. and elsewhere.
Ram knows on which side his bread is buttered (or banked offshore) and who's providing the butter (and offshore tax havens).
All of us, if faced with the same financial pressure and direction from our power bosses, would do the same.
Remember who's paying Ram's bills.
Ram does.
Ira
Hypatia...I was not arguing whether the Rosenbergs were or were not Communist. My point is that Jewish people were unproportionately black-labelled and made out to be enemies of the states. The Rosenbergs were in fact communist, but they did nothing deserving of the death penalty. If they weren't Jewish would they have gotten the death penalty? I think that is a very legitimate question. Yes there was evidence that the Rosenberg's gave information to the Soviets, but analysis showed that none of this information was new to the U.S.S.R. Jewish people are consistently made out to be the ones posing an "international threat" to the stability of American democracy. When communism threatened our democracy, it was led by the Jews. Now that neo-cons are threatening our democracy, it is once again the Jews, albeit coming from the opposite end of the politcal spectrum. Do you see what I am trying to get at? No matter what the threat, it's always Jewish people who are behind it.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I went to Emory University and took a class entitled "political ideologies" with Harvey Klehr. He is a former leftist turned neo-con as far as I can tell.
Regardless, like I said before, there needs to be academic debate on the subject; however, there is a distinction between academic debate and anti-Semitism. Jewish conspiracy theories are nothing new and have been a guise for anti-Semitism for millenia.
And cynic...obviously the greatest support Israel has today is from the US, regardless of the presence of a neo-con in office or a Democrat. It is for good reason, as the rest of the world is against Israel. That is clear from the fact that all but two countries (the US and Israel), via the UN, have defined Zionism as a form of apartheid. The modern conception of Zionism is a completely secular movement based on the idea that Jewish people should have a state of their own. To call Zionism apartheid means that you do not recognize Israel's right to exist. Obviously there are some extremists within Zionism who go beyond the true concept of the idea; however, that is a small minority and in no way should discredit the entire movement. Long point short, the US helps Israel because the rest of the world would rather them be gone.
Mr. Greenwald,
ReplyDeletePerhaps you could explain the disconnect between these two statements you wrote, one right after the other.
"two components and two components only to the censure...[the purportedly "illegal" nature of the program]...and [Bush's] patterns of deceit when speaking about the program."
"Bush 'defended' his program in multiple ways and the censure resolution -- contrary to Ponnuru's false claims -- does not seek to censure him for doing so."
Where does the deceit come in, if his "speaking" of the program is not "defending" it. And vice versa--when id "defending" it not "speaking" about it.
You seem to have nuanced this into "spectacularity" (spectacular hilarity).
And thsi is without even going into the "illegal" taint you place on a program that hasn't even been held to be illegal--except by you, a couple congressmen, and John Dean. None of the above are judges.
I await your reasoned and intelligence response.
And just to add, randomdna...I read Ha'aretz often, and by often I mean at least once a day. I think there is much that could be criticized about Israel's policies, just like with any other country; however, claiming that Jewish people control American policy, and criticizing policies that the Israeli government engage in are two completely distinct ideas. I am very much in opposition to the Likud Party, so I am very confused as to what you are trying to say. Criticizing a policy of Israel is a far cry from claiming Jewish people control the world.
ReplyDeleteAh, so here you are anonymous.
ReplyDelete"Strange indeed, the moonbat universe."
Indeed. Probably why most of us here reside in the Reality-based community.
Feel free to join us.
Except for the Harriet Miers episode, where The National Review crowd actually found the gumption to buck the White House on something, The Corner has been less of a conservative venue than a cheering section for Bush.
ReplyDeleteWhat about the Medicare prescription drug bill? The president's failure to veto a single spending bill? The steel tariff debacle?
I can name a score of other major policy differences between the Corner (National Review) crowd and the administration. The idea that conservatives march in lockstep with the president is a silly canard, easily refuted with countless examples in the public domain.
Feingold Said:
ReplyDeleteAs Democrats, we must prove that we won't back down from a fight. We must stand up and stand together
If only the moonbats would fight the enemy as hard as they fight their political rhetoric.
President Bush said it quite clearly today in a news conference defending the prefectly legal terrorist surveillance program. Feingold and other democraps should be man enough to tell voters.
"Vote for me and I'll end the Patriot Act"; "Vote for me and I'll put a stop to the government monitoring enemy phone calls and emails"; "Vote for me and I'll join Harry Reid and the other national democratic leadership in celebrating the killing of the Patriot act"; "Vote for me and I'll be sure that your theoretical liberties are no longer threatened in a manner you can't notice, while at the same time making sure your children are not as safe as they should be"; "Vote for me and instead of chasing Al Qaeda, I vow to spend all my time and your money chasing the real villain, George Bush".
LMAO,
What Glenn and the moonbats here seek is another election landslide on a par with the former Senator McGovern's victory at the polls.
Says the "Dog"
offpeak34: Now that neo-cons are threatening our democracy, it is once again the Jews, albeit coming from the opposite end of the politcal spectrum. Do you see what I am trying to get at? No matter what the threat, it's always Jewish people who are behind it.
ReplyDeleteI see it, and sympathize with your concerns. But let me digress a bit wrt the Rosenbergs. The govt was worried about perceptions that it was prosecuting the Rosenbergs out of anti-Semitic motive, and so it made sure there were lots of Jews on the prosecution team, and that a Jewish judge presided (and imposed the death penalty). Now, as to the info Julius passed to the Soviets, there is no doubt the atomic data was helpful, tho not remotely as useful as that which they received from other sources. However, Julius also passed on a lot of other crucial defense data, such as about aircraft carriers -- he had spies reporting to him from many defense contract firms.
For a number of reasons, neocons tend to be led by Jews. Jews who formerly were Communists or other variety of leftist. (Kristol, Podhoretz, Horowitz.) To the extent they were disproportionately in the far left fold, they are also over-represented by those who, upon repenting, went over to the right.
I don't know what to do about all that, but I agree it makes for a very dangerous and ugly potential for an escalation in anti-Semitism. Not long ago, over at The Corner, the militantly anti-Intelligent Design John Derbyshire reported asking an elderly Jewish gentlemen at a party why Commentary and other neocon organs were so hostile to evolution and friendly to the creationism of Xian fundamentalists; Derb reported the fellow said it was because such a practice is good for the Jews.
It is all very strange, but it does seem to be the case that some right-of-center Jewish intellectuals make policy decisions based solely on how they feel it will benefit their "tribe." This troubles me, and I worry about backlash, but have not the first clue what to do about it.
jpf:
ReplyDeleteWhere does the deceit come in, if his "speaking" of the program is not "defending" it. And vice versa--when id "defending" it not "speaking" about it.
People don't get in trouble for speaking about anything, but for lying.
However, lying requires speaking, so by your definition, prosecuting someone for lying is the same as prosecuting someone for speaking.
The resolution goes after Bush's lies, not the act of defending.
off peak34: You really need to read the article that has inspired this debate. No one i saying that the Jewish people are controlling the US. They are saying that the pro-Israel Lobby (which includes Christians BTW) does.
ReplyDeleteThere's a distinction. That the Jewish people in Israel might benefit from this is a tertiary issue, if at all, except in the sense that many Jews (and Arabs) live in Israel.
Again, the issue is about how the pro-Israel Lobby has so influenced the MSM and the Congress, that it is a given and uncritiqued assumption (one might even say "common-sense" view) that Israel's interests are the US' interests.
Not long ago, over at The Corner, the militantly anti-Intelligent Design John Derbyshire reported asking an elderly Jewish gentlemen at a party why Commentary and other neocon organs were so hostile to evolution and friendly to the creationism of Xian fundamentalists; Derb reported the fellow said it was because such a practice is good for the Jews.
ReplyDeleteI know about the Rosenberg story, their guilt had nothing to do with my point. I am further confused by your point on this regard. Jewish people convinced Christian Evangelists to be hostile to evolution? I don't think the Evangelists needed the convincing of a Jew to be anti-evolution. I still don't see your ultimate point. Jewish people are also some of the most prominent scientists in many fields, including the study of evolution as SCIENCE. So now Jewish people are behind the fictitious and ridiculous "debate on evolution" that shouldn't really exist in the first place? I am thoroughly confused.
jpf said : Mr. Greenwald,
ReplyDeletePerhaps you could explain the disconnect between these two statements you wrote, one right after the other.
"two components and two components only to the censure...[the purportedly "illegal" nature of the program]...and [Bush's] patterns of deceit when speaking about the program."
"Bush 'defended' his program in multiple ways and the censure resolution -- contrary to Ponnuru's false claims -- does not seek to censure him for doing so."
Where does the deceit come in, if his "speaking" of the program is not "defending" it. And vice versa--when id "defending" it not "speaking" about it.
As you would know if you had read previous posts of Glenn's, or listened to the radio broadcast that Glenn participated in only a few days ago, the deceit was in the President's falsehoods about the government's surveillance role before the program was made public. Specifically, he said in speeches after the NSA wiretapping program was in place, that "every time" he is talking about wiretapping, that means a court order. That was deliberately deceitful, and is what the censure resolution talks about, if you'd bother to read it.
And thsi is without even going into the "illegal" taint you place on a program that hasn't even been held to be illegal--except by you, a couple congressmen, and John Dean. None of the above are judges.
Actually, you're wrong on both counts. Many more than your little list have questioned its legality, and a former judge is on that list.
I think it is fair (and accurate) to state that the mantle of American anti-Semitism passed quietly from the right to the left sometime in the late 1960s, and over the ensuing years the virulence of leftist Jew-hatred has intensified measurably since that time.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, the money-grubbing hook-nosed Jewish caricature is often seen on signs at leftist rallies. The writings of such leftist icons as Gore Vidal and Alexander Cockburn are notorious for their anti-Semitic content. David Horowitz has written extensively on this subject and has carefully documented the phenomenon in numerous of his books.
It is true that criticism of Israel does not necessarily equate with anti-Semitism. However, it is also true that these days many of the most notable public leftists cross the line into anti-Semitism with their accusations and charges regarding the “Israel Lobby,” and other such shibboleths. In previous years it was the left who supported Israel and the Jewish people against their mortal enemies. Now it is the right. Is it any wonder that conservatives become suspicious of leftist Israel criticism when it comes from the same quarter as those who are unabashed in their desire to see the destruction of the Jewish state?
One footnote. I typed in, by mistake, glenngreenwald.blogpot.com (no "s"), and was sent to a bible study site, complete with annoying popups. (I think you're getting on their nerves).
ReplyDeleteThere is much in the conclusions of Mearsheimer and Waltwith with which one can reasonably, even vehemently, disagree. But one need not agree with them to recognize the importance of the issues they raise and of the equally important need to be able to discuss them without the smear tactics and personal attacks which, increasingly, have become the only tactic left to Bush followers.
ReplyDeleteLet's not get carried away. No one is stifling discussion. The Mearsheimers and Pat Buchanans of the world are free to say whatever they want about Israel and the Israel lobby. Buchanan did so in the American Prospect. Tim Russert even asked on the MTP, (I forget to whom), "Are we going to war for Israel's sake?"
That some of their opponents use smear tactics and personal attacks is hardly surprising, since smear tactics and personal attacks are endemic in our political culture as a general matter. To single out the opponents of Mearsheimer and Buchanan etc. as somehow unique, and that they stifle dissent, therefore, is itself a curious matter.
Ok -- I do realize that this is probably insane but the staggering dishonesty of that attack ad leads me to ask -- can't Russ Feingold sue the RNC for slander? Or at least run a response that calls it slander? And it's not that hard for Russ to explain what it is that he's really doing.
ReplyDeleteI am mystified by the kind of mentality that would have the gall to do this. I should be used to this crap after six years but it still surprises me when they reach new lows.
hypatia: Let's not forgte Leo Struass, whose work and tenure at the UofChicago gave birth to the neocons. Alan Bloom was also a Straussian. Strauss was a non-religious Jew whose view of religion was Machiavellian--ie, it served as a way to keep the hoi polloi under control.
ReplyDeleteoffpeak34 writes: I am further confused by your point on this regard. Jewish people convinced Christian Evangelists to be hostile to evolution? I don't think the Evangelists needed the convincing of a Jew to be anti-evolution. I still don't see your ultimate point. Jewish people are also some of the most prominent scientists in many fields, including the study of evolution as SCIENCE. So now Jewish people are behind the fictitious and ridiculous "debate on evolution" that shouldn't really exist in the first place? I am thoroughly confused.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry I was less than clear.
John Derbyshire adores science and hates so-called Intelligent Design. That's one of the few things he and I hold in common.
The whole ID hoax is an overwhelmingly fundamentalist and/or evangelical Xian movement. Yet, magazines like Commentary have not infrequently written nice things about ID and attacked "Darwinists." The intellectuals there are simply too intelligent to really believe ID nonsense, so Derbyshire could not grasp why they were giving a platform to its defenders. He asked a Jewish man at a party for his viewpoint, and was told that it is perceived to be in Jewish interests to attack evolution.
My take on what that means is that the neocons court Xian evangelicals, and that that cohort is pleased when "Darwinism" is attacked. Commentary, according to this theory, perceives attacking Darwinism as cementing the Jewish neocon, pro-Israel lobby's relationship with the Xian right.
Otherwise, it is hard to fathom why they publish that anti-evolution stuff. One other, somewhat related explanation I have read is that they are Straussians who, altho they are themselves irreligious, believe it is dangerous for the masses if religion is undermined, and they think evolution does that.
Anonymous (who has yet to answer any challenge put to them directly) -
ReplyDeleteI suspect (based largely on personal discussions with Jewish and Arab friends) a great deal of the left-end protest against Israel is based more upon the Israeli government's less-than-admirable treatment of the Palestinians, not actual anti-semitism.
I further suspect (based upon public pronouncements of public figures) that much of the right-end support of Israel is based upon the over-publicized "End Times" eschaology held by leading elements of the Christian Right, not any sort of actual affection for Israel itself. Indeed, reading said mythology to its end sees the destruction of the Jewish state and its population (those that don't convert to Chrisitanity, that is).
So, tell me again which side is worse?
great minds thinking alike, cynic librarian posted at 7:56:Alan Bloom was also a Straussian. Strauss was a non-religious Jew whose view of religion was Machiavellian--ie, it served as a way to keep the hoi polloi under control.
ReplyDeleteAnd also at 7:56, I posted:One other, somewhat related explanation I have read is that they are Straussians who, altho they are themselves irreligious, believe it is dangerous for the masses if religion is undermined, and they think evolution does that.
I think it is all inter-mingled. The Commentary crowd is pro-religion for the masses, and also wants to maintain a good realtionship with the fiercely pro-Israel, Xian religious right.
To anon and peak34 et al: does anyone even consider dealing with the facts in the paper under discussion or shall we all simply engage in ad hominem, red herrings and numerous other fallacies? BTW there are numerous Jews who have taken up this issue of Israel and whether it represents all Jews.
ReplyDeleteSince Alan Dershowitz's name has been put on the table, readers of this blog might consider reading Norman Finkelstein's response to the esteemed barrister from Harvard.
yankee: talk about not responding to direct posts; I addressed the relationship between Israel and the Xtian millenialists in a previous post.
ReplyDeleteSST: Some people say that this type of debate can't happen because of charges of bigotry? I say this debates seems to bring anti-Semites out of the closet.
ReplyDeleteAre these mutually exclusive? I don’t think so. And I think that was Glenn’s point in a post not yet published for crying out loud. His point was that Powerline and InstaHypocrite don’t want this debate, and therefore accuse the authors of anti-Semitism.
Yes, the article brought out the anti-Semite David Duke. Does that mean that the article and the authors are anti-Semitic as well? No. Of course not. As I pointed out previously on this thread, David Duke has all kinds of connections to the Republican Party, but does that mean that all Republicans are anti-Semites? No, that’s ridiculous. But that’s exactly the tactic used by “neo-cons” to immunize themselves from all criticism.
Just because a topic brings out bigots does not mean that the topic, or the person who brought it up is a bigot, or that the topic is illegitimate.
Bigots rarely come straight out and say what they mean. Israel is of great benefit to anti-Semites in this matter. You don't have to come out and say you are against the Jews. Just say you are anti-Israel.
Haven’t you have just equated all criticism of neo-con policies with saying that “you are against the Jews” and being ‘”anti-Israel?” Is there any difference between being against Likkud policies and being anti-Israel to you? Are you calling Glenn Greenwald a bigot for bringing up this subject? Is that why you just set up your new blogger account?
Criticism of disastrous neo-con policies is not being against the Jews or against Israel. That’s a dishonest argument and that exactly the point of Glenn’s brief excerpt of a post that I hope he’ll publish in full if C&L doesn’t.
I suspect (based largely on personal discussions with Jewish and Arab friends) a great deal of the left-end protest against Israel is based more upon the Israeli government's less-than-admirable treatment of the Palestinians, not actual anti-semitism.
ReplyDeleteThis would be true except for one inconvenient fact: the left has never protested against or objected to the campaign of mindless violence perpetrated upon innocent Jews by "Palestinian" Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza during the numerous "intifadas" of the last couple of decades.
This double standard is the very definition of rank anti-Semitism and is regularly practiced by (certain) prominent leftist spokesmen and their supporters.
I further suspect (based upon public pronouncements of public figures) that much of the right-end support of Israel is based upon the over-publicized "End Times" eschaology held by leading elements of the Christian Right...
This is laughably fatuous. The reason the right (mostly) supports Israel is because it is in our national interest to do so, given Israel's military strength, her committment to human rights and democratic values, and her free enterprise economic system.
This "end-times eschatology" silliness betrays either a willful ignorance of reality or a deep hatred of the right.
notherbob2,
ReplyDeleteAnyone who quotes wikipedia as an authoritative source for anything is a complete idiot. Case closed.
It also seems to me that using the term "moonbat" as an insult is like bringing a note from your mother to a knife fight. Never has the inability to either argue on the merits or talk smack been combined with so little testosterone.
If you were in grade school and pulled that zinger out of your holster you would have been rightly ridiculed and pummeled by the popular kids and teachers alike.
Cynic -
ReplyDeleteSeems I missed your post. Was it on this thread or another?
Ramesh Ponnuru sounds like a little baby.
ReplyDeleteYou might recall that I told you that the Elephants have no intention of hiding from the Feingold censure resolution. Instead, they (and nearly all Dems) see this as a winning issue in 2006 for the GOP.
ReplyDeleteWell, in response to a question on the censure motion at today's White House press conference, Mr. Bush reiterated his support for the NSA Program and flatly challenged the Dems to campaign in 2006 by arguing that his direction of the NSA Program is illegal.
You folks would have enjoyed the grin on his face, which said "Bring it on!"
Any success convincing your Senators to support your censure resolution? After all, the grinning President supposedly only has 1/3 popular support...
From Glenn's C&L post:
ReplyDeleteYale Has its Taliban; University of Tennessee Law School has its Stormfront Member
No more Instalanches for you, Mr. Greenwald!
anon way back at 10:42 AM said...
ReplyDeleteIs [the present debate] the cummulative effect or is the spying thing just that important?
Once more it's a "breaking the law" thing, not a "spying thing".
As for the pro-Israel lobby, pretending it doesn't influence American foreign or economic policy is pure head-in-the-sand-ism. The discussion as to whether this is a good or bad thing shouldn't stop with just that particularly lobby, but also other lobbies that clearly influence American foreign and economic policy, i.e. the defense industry or the oil industry. Corporatism and the ascendancy of corporative representation in government really ought to be discussed openly if America is to be legitimately considered a democracy of the people, for the people.
Very interesting, HereKittyKitty. What other fantasies did you have when you were a "band nerd" in high school?
ReplyDeleteCtiticize neo-cons all you want. I criticize them all the time, but when you criticize them as Jews or the code word pro Israel lobby that is not legitimate and is crossing the line.
ReplyDeleteIs there a pro-Israeli lobby? Is it possible to talk about, or even object to, their influence - like one would any other lobbying group or interest group - without being an anti-semite?
SST: Ctiticize neo-cons all you want. I criticize them all the time, but when you criticize them as Jews or the code word pro Israel lobby that is not legitimate and is crossing the line.
ReplyDeleteOh, I see. Any criticism of AIPAC (the pro-Israel lobby) or its influence is “crossing the line” into anti-Semitism – I’m so glad you cleared that up.
You’ve just made Glenn’s point – that this topic is illegitimate. Thanks.
End of this discussion. Henceforth AIPAC and its influence on U.S. policy is off limits.
(After all you don’t want InstaHypocrite to compare you to David Duke now do you?)
No-one should have missed today how the President himself, not sme shrill blogger or Fox achor, portrayed the Dem position on wiretapping as 'if they want to stand up and tell people vote for me so that you will not have terrorist surveillance programs'.
ReplyDeleteThe more they say it, the easier it will be to contradict them. But it will take a stick-to-the-letter-of-the-resolution approach from everyone on the Dem side. Certainly the media are struggling, while reporting Rep statements, to point out that they miss the mark by a few hundred miles.
Wait, so nobody seems to have a problem with warrantless searches conducted before FISA banned them? I don't get it.
ReplyDeleteThere was no statutory authority for presidents to conduct these searches, which means that the authority was inherent in the constitutional powers of the executive - and the FISA court has upheld this.
Hate to break it to those unfamiliar with civics 101, but Congress can't remove an inherent constitutional power of the president by statute. That requires a little something called a constitutional amendment - something I know is foreign to the Roe v. Wade supporting crowd.
FISA has no authority over GWB's commander-in-chief powers. Oh well. Next moonbat topic please.
Hate to break it to those unfamiliar with civics 101, but Congress can't remove an inherent constitutional power of the president by statute. That requires a little something called a constitutional amendment - something I know is
ReplyDeleteActually, this is false. There is something called SHARED POWERS - it happens to be the whole basis for our system of government - where Congress can check and limit presidential powers. Even Gonzales said exactly that when he testified before the Senate Committee. Just because the President has a power in an area doesn't mean that the Congress doesn't also have the power to regulate it. THAT is Civics 101.
The whole point of Youngstown is that Truman could not seize steel factories BECAUSE Congress barred it. Obviously, he had the power or it wouldn't have been an issue in the first place.
Good try there, Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteSo, the fact the Left didn't object to the Palestinian Intifadas and the resultant violence indicates a double-standard? There's an argument to be had that these uprisings are perfectly justified to the continued repression the Palestians have suffered.
As to the Right, while I don't doubt there's a good bit of realpolitick calculation involved, the most vocal and influential support on the issue is heard from the religious angle. Consequently, they're setting the tone and tenor of Israel's support here.
I would personally welcome any examples of support from prominant figures besides the whole "Left Behind" crowd (ps, Tom Delay does *not* count).
Could we at least agree that attitudes and support/opposition for/against Israel are considerably more complicated than the sort of one-dimensional absolutist thinking that seems to be going on here?
Try again.
There's another argument that attitudes towards Israel are considerably more complicated than
Good try there, Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteSo, the fact the Left didn't object to the Palestinian Intifadas and the resultant violence indicates a double-standard? There's an argument to be had that these uprisings are perfectly justified to the continued repression the Palestians have suffered.
As to the Right, while I don't doubt there's a good bit of realpolitick calculation involved, the most vocal and influential support on the issue is heard from the religious angle. Consequently, they're setting the tone and tenor of Israel's support here.
I would personally welcome any examples of support from prominant figures besides the whole "Left Behind" crowd (ps, Tom Delay does *not* count).
Could we at least agree that attitudes and support/opposition for/against Israel are considerably more complicated than the sort of one-dimensional absolutist thinking that seems to be going on here?
Try again.
Am I the only having trobble with blogger here?
ReplyDeleteThere's an argument to be had that these uprisings are perfectly justified to the continued repression the Palestians have suffered.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. And today the only place you'll find anyone willing to make such an argument is on...the left.
I would personally welcome any examples of support from prominant figures besides the whole "Left Behind" crowd (ps, Tom Delay does *not* count).
You mean like George Will, Wm Buckley, the entire National Review crowd, "Commentary" magazine, "First Things" magazine...nearly the entire intellectual right wing (and countless others)...all support Israel in its struggle against the "Palestinians," or as I prefer to call them, "Arabs living on the West Bank and Gaza."
Could we at least agree that attitudes and support/opposition for/against Israel are considerably more complicated than the sort of one-dimensional absolutist thinking that seems to be going on here?
Well, you either support Israel's right to exist...or you don't. Once that question is settled, I think there is much room for debate.
Israel's Arab citizens have the exact same legal status as its Jewish citizens.
ReplyDeleteThe "exact same legal status," of course, as long as you don't count the The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, enacted in 2003.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3111727.stm
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0808/p06s03-wome.html
LAB
The "exact same legal status," of course, as long as you don't count the The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, enacted in 2003.
ReplyDeleteWe have similar laws in the United States. The Marriage of a United States citizen to a non-citizen does not automatically confer citizenship status on the spouse. What is your motivation for criticizing Israel for this practice when you don't make similar criticisms of other nations (including the United States) for having the same rules?
anon: Hate to break it to those unfamiliar with civics 101, but Congress can't remove an inherent constitutional power of the president by statute. That requires a little something called a constitutional amendment - something I know is foreign to the Roe v. Wade supporting crowd.
ReplyDeleteFISA has no authority over GWB's commander-in-chief powers. Oh well. Next moonbat topic please.
Sorry, anon, but the SCOTUS disagrees with you. To quote from Justice Robert Jackson's Opinion in Youngstown -- most recently discussed by various justices in the Hamdi case (all emphasis mine):
While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity. Presidential powers are not fixed but fluctuate, depending upon their disjunction or conjunction with those of Congress. ... When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling [343 U.S. 579, 638] the Congress from acting upon the subject. 4 Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.... Of course, a state of war may in fact exist without a formal declaration. But no doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation's armed forces to some foreign venture....
the Constitution did not contemplate that the title Commander in Chief of the [343 U.S. 579, 644] Army and Navy will constitute him also Commander in Chief of the country, its industries and its inhabitants. He has no monopoly of "war powers," whatever they are. While Congress cannot deprive the President of the command of the army and navy, only Congress can provide him an army or navy to command. It is also empowered to make rules for the "Government and Regulation of land and naval Forces," by which it may to some unknown extent impinge upon even command functions.
That military powers of the Commander in Chief were not to supersede representative government of internal affairs seems obvious from the Constitution and from elementary American history....
The Solicitor General lastly grounds support of the seizure upon nebulous, inherent powers never expressly granted but said to have accrued to the office from the customs and claims of preceding administrations. The plea is for a resulting power to deal with a crisis or an emergency according to the necessities of the case, the unarticulated assumption being that necessity knows no law.
Loose and irresponsible use of adjectives colors all nonlegal and much legal discussion of presidential powers. [343 U.S. 579, 647] "Inherent" powers, "implied" powers, "incidental" powers, "plenary" powers, "war" powers and "emergency" powers are used, often interchangeably and without fixed or ascertainable meanings.
The vagueness and generality of the clauses that set forth presidential powers afford a plausible basis for pressures within and without an administration for presidential action beyond that supported by those whose responsibility it is to defend his actions in court. The claim of inherent and unrestricted presidential powers has long been a persuasive dialectical weapon in political controversy. While it is not surprising that counsel should grasp support from such unadjudicated claims of power, a judge cannot accept self-serving press statements of the attorney for one of the interested parties as authority in answering a constitutional question, even if the advocate was himself. But prudence has counseled that actual reliance on such nebulous claims stop short of provoking a judicial test. ... The appeal, however, that we declare the existence of inherent powers ex necessitate to meet an emergency asks us to do what many think would be wise, although [343 U.S. 579, 650] it is something the forefathers omitted. They knew what emergencies were, knew the pressures they engender for authoritative action, knew, too, how they afford a ready pretext for usurpation. We may also suspect that they suspected that emergency powers would tend to kindle emergencies. Aside from suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in time of rebellion or invasion, when the public safety may require it, 18 they made no express provision for exercise of extraordinary authority because of a crisis. 19 I do not think we rightfully may so amend their work, and, if we could, I am not convinced it would be wise to do ... In view of the ease, expedition and safety with which Congress can grant and has granted large emergency powers, certainly ample to embrace this crisis, I am quite unimpressed with the argument that we should affirm possession of them without statute. Such power either has no beginning or it has no end. If it exists, it need submit to no legal restraint. I am not alarmed that it would plunge us straightway into dictatorship, but it is at least a step in that wrong direction.
There is ample reason why Powerline hates this Opinion, and has ridiculed it as "sloppy" and "silly." Unfortunately for them, and you -- not to mention George Bush -- it is how the High Court applies Youngstown.
Actually, this is false. There is something called SHARED POWERS - it happens to be the whole basis for our system of government - where Congress can check and limit presidential powers. Even Gonzales said exactly that when he testified before the Senate Committee. Just because the President has a power in an area doesn't mean that the Congress doesn't also have the power to regulate it. THAT is Civics 101.
ReplyDeleteNope. Congress cannot by statute infringe upon Constitutional authority of the president. Period.
The whole point of Youngstown is that Truman could not seize steel factories BECAUSE Congress barred it. Obviously, he had the power or it wouldn't have been an issue in the first place.
You've never read Youngstown, I see. Truman issued an executive order which the Supreme Court ruled amounted to legislation, a power delegated to Congress by the Constitution.
The Court found that - just as in the case of FISA, ironically - one branch cannot override the powers of another branch if those powers are inherent in the Consitution. So much for your "shared powers" idea.
Glad I didn't take civics wherever you did...
There is ample reason why Powerline hates this Opinion, and has ridiculed it as "sloppy" and "silly." Unfortunately for them, and you -- not to mention George Bush -- it is how the High Court applies Youngstown.
ReplyDeleteActually, since Jackson didn't write the opinion for Youngstown, his take on presidential power is not the ruling of the Court.
History lessons to follow civics.
A much longer and more in depth article linking US foreign policy and Israel.. this is history.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
The Marriage of a United States citizen to a non-citizen does not automatically confer citizenship status on the spouse.
ReplyDeleteThis obvious fact is not a direct comparison to the The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (akin to comparing apples to oranges).
A U.S. citizen who marries a non-citizen is legally entitled to sponsor citizenship of his or her spouse. The process may take a year or more.
However, an Arab Israeli citizen who marries a Palestinian from the Occupied Territories is not at all legally entitled to sponsor citizenship for his or her spouse.
As to my motivation, it's only pointing out the inaccuracy of stating that "Israel's Arab citizens have the exact same legal status as its Jewish citizens." As the The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law makes very clear, the legal status for Israel's Arab citizens and its Jewish citizens is not at all the same.
LAB
Actually, since Jackson didn't write the opinion for Youngstown, his take on presidential power is not the ruling of the Court.
ReplyDeleteHistory lessons to follow civics.
But it is the Opinion that has long been adoped by the Supremes for purposes of applying Youngstown. Justice Clarence Thomas, in Hamdi, discussed Jackson's Opinion, and said that Congress likely could legislate procedural protections for detainees like Mr. Hamdi. (He simply felt the courts could not impose them.)
If Thomas is liking and applying Jackson's Opinion, what do you think that means?
However, an Arab Israeli citizen who marries a Palestinian from the Occupied Territories is not at all legally entitled to sponsor citizenship for his or her spouse.
ReplyDeleteThis law was only recently promulgated, and has very limited effect. The article you cite is clear why this had to be done:
But the minister in charge of relations with parliament, Gideon Ezra, has defended the bill on the grounds that 30 Israelis have been allegedly killed by Palestinians who gained citizenship and residency rights through marriage.
Perhaps when "Palestinians" stop murdering innocent Jews the law will be repealed.
anonymous 5:26 wrote: If only the goddamn mother f-n dems could get their act together, we'd have an ad out talking about Bush breaking the law.
ReplyDeleteIf the dems get their act together, they'll have an ad out talking about how Bush got us into this mess: N. Korea: U.S. does not have 'monopoly' on pre-emptive [nuclear] strike
And it doesn't matter whether or not the Dems have a better plan. It's all about catapulting the propaganda.
Anon, Jackson's Opinion was adopted by Rehnquist in
ReplyDeleteDAMES & MOORE v. REGAN:
The parties and the lower courts, confronted with the instant questions, have all agreed that much relevant analysis is contained in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. Justice Black's opinion for the Court in that case, involving the validity of President Truman's effort to seize the country's steel mills in the wake of a nationwide strike, recognized that "[t]he President's power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself." Justice Jackson's concurring opinion elaborated in a general way the consequences of different types of interaction between the two democratic branches in assessing Presidential authority to act in any given case. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization from Congress, he exercises not only his powers but also those delegated by Congress. In such a case the executive action "would be supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it." When the President acts in the absence of congressional authorization he may enter "a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain." In such a case the analysis becomes more complicated, and the validity of the President's action, at least so far as separation-of-powers principles are concerned, hinges on a consideration of all the circumstances which might shed light on the views of the Legislative Branch toward such action, including "congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence." Finally, when the President acts in contravention of the will of Congress, "his power is at its lowest ebb," and the Court can sustain his actions "only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject."
Although we have in the past found and do today find Justice Jackson's classification of executive actions into three general categories analytically useful, we should be mindful of Justice Holmes' admonition, quoted by Justice Frankfurter in Youngstown, supra, at 597 (concurring opinion), that "[t]he great ordinances of the Constitution do not establish and divide fields of black and white....." Justice Jackson himself recognized that his three categories represented "a somewhat over-simplified grouping," and it is doubtless the case that executive action in any particular instance falls, not neatly in one of three pigeonholes, but rather at some point along a spectrum running from explicit congressional authorization to explicit congressional prohibition. This is particularly true as respects cases such as the one before us, involving responses to international crises the nature of which Congress can hardly have been expected to anticipate in any detail.
In that case, President Carter's freezing of Iranian assets was upheld, and Rehnquist noted, the President did so: " pursuant to specific congressional authorization, " because Rehnquist found authorization implicit in several statutes. And in any event, Carter was not acting unconstitutionally. In the case of Bush, he is violating a law that Congress meant to apply precisely in the circumstances under which Bush is violating the law. There is no doubt that within the spectrum Rehnquist describes, Bush is in the one of "explicit congressional prohibition."
Jackson's Opinion has been adopted and repeatedly applied by the SCOTUS -- for decades and to the present. Per that Opinion, Bush is in manifest, indefensible violation of a criminal statute.
SST: As to Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al belonging to AIPAC. Barring an ethnic or religious requirement, I don't see why they wouldn't belong to the group--OH, I forgot! It's a LOBBYING group.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, perhaps they'll be hired after they get out of office. Their present circumstances, however, do not bar them from speaking at AIPAC conventions, at least Cheney.
anonymous @ 10:07pm: Have you noticed that three x as many Palestnians have died than Israelis? I imagine to you they're all terrorists.
ReplyDeleteEleanor said...
ReplyDeleteHate to break it to those unfamiliar with civics 101, but Congress can't remove an inherent constitutional power of the president by statute. That requires a little something called a constitutional amendment - something I know is
Actually, this is false. There is something called SHARED POWERS - it happens to be the whole basis for our system of government - where Congress can check and limit presidential powers.
Really? Show me what provision in Article I of the Constitution or any court decision which permits Congress to limit or eliminate the President's Article II powers.
No one here or elsewhere has been able to identify this mystery provision of the Constitution for me. It must exist in the penumbras with the right to kill your unborn children....
The whole point of Youngstown is that Truman could not seize steel factories BECAUSE Congress barred it. Obviously, he had the power or it wouldn't have been an issue in the first place.
Have you actually read Youngstown? In that case Congress had a long recognized and preexisting power to regulate government property seizures while the President had a very weak argument that he shared this power with Congress as CiC.
You are welcome to point out to me the provision or Article I or any court case which holds that Congress has a constitutional power to direct and conduct intelligence gathering.
Hypathia:
ReplyDeleteThe Dames & Moore case is another property seizure case just like Youngstown where a long recognized power of Congress was implicated.
Once again, Congress has no power to direct or conduct intelligence collection against foreign groups and their agents in the first instance to create a "shared powers" case on which to use the Jackson balancing test.
Clarence Thomas, in Hamdi, my emphasis:
ReplyDeleteThe plurality reaches a contrary conclusion by failing adequately to consider basic principles of the constitutional structure as it relates to national security and foreign affairs ... I do not think that the Federal Government’s war powers can be balanced away by this Court. Arguably, Congress could provide for additional procedural protections, but until it does, we have no right to insist upon them.
...
Congress, to be sure, has a substantial and essential role in both foreign affairs and national security.
.....
For these institutional reasons and because “Congress cannot anticipate and legislate with regard to every possible action the President may find it necessary to take or every possible situation in which he might act,” it should come as no surprise that “[s]uch failure of Congress … does not, ‘especially … in the areas of foreign policy and national security,’ imply ‘congressional disapproval’ of action taken by the Executive.” Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 678 (1981) (quoting Agee, 453 U.S., at 291). Rather, in these domains, the fact that Congress has provided the President with broad authorities does not imply–and the Judicial Branch should not infer–that Congress intended to deprive him of particular powers not specifically enumerated. See Dames & Moore, 453 U.S., at 678. As far as the courts are concerned, “the enactment of legislation closely related to the question of the President’s authority in a particular case which evinces legislative intent to accord the President broad discretion may be considered to ‘invite’ ‘measures on independent presidential responsibility.’ ” Ibid. (quoting Youngstown, 343 U.S., at 637 (Jackson, J., concurring)).
If Congress could legislate procedural protections for citizens caught as enemy combatants -- an area of "presidential authority" -- on foreign soil, it is deranged to think it cannot legislate with regard to how the Exectuive may surveille U.S. persons on American soil.
Great discussion. I've learned a lot. Bart, I think the burden is on you to show support for your opinion that the President's powers are above any action by the other two bodies.
ReplyDeleteSo far you have only demanded from others, but have provided very little beyond your outrage. It is clear that the courts have taken a position on the issue that directly contradicts your position.
Hypathia:
ReplyDeleteCongress has the express constitutional power to set the procedural standards for writs of habeus corpus for prisoners of the state. That gives them a constitutional dog in the fight over the imprisonment of detainees if the courts find that habeus extends to foreign detainees in a war.
However, once again, Congress has no constitutional power to direct or conduct intelligence gathering against foreign powers or their agents in the United States. Therefore, they have no dog in that fight.
I completely agree with Justice Thomas that Congress has several enumerated powers over war and foreign policy. That observations cannot be shoe horned to support an argument that they share all powers over war and foreign policy with the President.
This law was only recently promulgated, and has very limited effect. The article you cite is clear why this had to be done:
ReplyDeleteThe rationale for enacting a law that prevents Palestinians married to Arab Israelis from gaining Israeli citizenship was not in question.
What was in question was the statement that "Israel's Arab citizens have the exact same legal status as its Jewish citizens."
As the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law clearly demonstrates, Israel's Arab citizens do not have the "exact same" legal status as its Jewish citizens. This is also true of the Law of Return, which is exclusive to Jewish citizens of Israel.
LAB
Celo to Bart: So far you have only demanded from others, but have provided very little beyond your outrage. It is clear that the courts have taken a position on the issue that directly contradicts your position.
ReplyDeleteBart is a troll, one of really only two here. He's been throught this all before, and I won't any longer respond to him directly, because he purposely missates case holdings and opinions, in situations where he has to know he is doing so. Intellectual dishonesty is my idea of a mortal sin.
His notion that Youngstown only applies to property cases is absurd, and not supported by that decision itself or the many other cases that have applied it, including Hamdi. John at Powerline would not be going out his way to disdain Jackson's Youngstown Opinion in the context of the NSA scandal if it only applied to pty seizure cases.
Further, the Bush DoJ does not itself make such a stupid argument.
"the Dog" said...
ReplyDelete"President Bush said it quite clearly today in a news conference defending the prefectly legal terrorist surveillance program. Feingold and other democraps should be man enough to tell voters."
Your absolutely right dog. The terrorist surveilance program is PREFECTLY legal since the executive branch is the only one that has decided that it is.
Noun 1.prefect - a chief officer or chief magistrate; "the prefect of Paris police" administrator, executive - someone who manages a government agency or department.
celo said...
ReplyDeleteGreat discussion. I've learned a lot. Bart, I think the burden is on you to show support for your opinion that the President's powers are above any action by the other two bodies.
So far you have only demanded from others, but have provided very little beyond your outrage. It is clear that the courts have taken a position on the issue that directly contradicts your position.
I have cited the CiC provision of Article II as the basis of the President's authority to conduct warrantless intelligence gathering against foreign groups and their agents in the US. I have several times cited the half dozen cases which have unanimously agreed with my interpretation of the CiC provision of Article II.
In support for their arguments that Congress has the power to limit or eliminate this well established Article II power, I have asked for them to cite any provision from Article I or any court decision which allows Congress to do so.
In a legal argument, this is the least backers of an imperial congress should have to provide.
Hypatia said...
ReplyDeleteBart is a troll, one of really only two here. He's been throught this all before, and I won't any longer respond to him directly, because he purposely missates case holdings and opinions, in situations where he has to know he is doing so. Intellectual dishonesty is my idea of a mortal sin.
Translation: I cannot come up with a single shred of legal authority to back up my position, so I'll fall back on name calling. I will accuse my opponent of distorting my positions because I cannot defend them.
His notion that Youngstown only applies to property cases is absurd, and not supported by that decision itself or the many other cases that have applied it, including Hamdi.
Sir, you have the gall to accuse me of "purposely missat[ing] case holdings and opinions, in situations where he has to know he is doing so" and then post this bald faced lie concerning my position.
I have never stated that Youngstown only applies to property seizure cases. Indeed, we were just discussing how the Jackson test might apply to cases like Hamdi where Congress is exercising its power to set procedural conditions for the writ of habeus corpus.
What I have clearly stated to you is that the Jackson test only applies to situations where Congress and the President SHARE a constitutional power over some subject, something which you cannot deny with a straight face. Because neither you nor anyone else has been able to cite a provision of Article I with gives Congress the power to direct or conduct intelligence gathering, there simply is no shared power case to be made - PERIOD.
Further, the Bush DoJ does not itself make such a stupid argument.
Actually, Justice tries to have it both ways with Justice Jackson.
They extensively quote Attorney General Jackson arguing that Congress may not interfere with the President's powers as CiC. See page 10 of the DOJ White Paper.
At the same time they argue that Congress has ratified the President's NSA Program with the AUMF. See page 11 of the DOJ White Paper.
However, in the end, Justice does essentially make my argument in their discussion of constitutional avoidance starting on page 28.
As I have observed before, Justice and I have different goals here.
Justice is attempting to preserve the NSA program for intelligence gathering and FISA for criminal prosecution. Therefore, they do not want the courts for find FISA unconstitutional.
On the other hand, I am simply applying the Constitution as written and do not care if the court finds FISA partially or completely unconstitutional.
If anyone thinks troll Bart's arguments hold even a scintilla of merit, I would invite you to peruse Glenn's Compendium of NSA Arguments.
ReplyDeleteGlenn properly frames the legal questions, as the courts would, and answers them.
"Bart is a troll, one of really only two here." - Hypatia"
ReplyDeleteWell, we are finally getting down to it. Despite all of the high falutin' verbiage about wanting a free discussion, the real aim of this site all along has been to create an echo chamber similar to Daily Kos. From most of the posts, the commenters are from Daily Kos anyway. They don't want any discussion except how to lynch Bush.
Hypatia has not been able to shoot down Bart's arguments - not that most loyal readers have been following them.
The alternate common sense theory to Mr. Greenwald's accusation that Bush is an evil usurper of power (the purpose of which remains obscure) is that he feels he has a sound Constitutional basis for what he has done.
Mr. Greenwald's position is that such a basis doesn't exist. Bart, for one, says it does. In the big world, Mr. Greenwald ( and Senator Feingold, for that matter) are having trouble attracting flies to their theories. Mr. Greenwald believes that the press has dropped the ball on this issue.
The reason you folks here are considered "moonbats" is that in order for you to be right, the President is a crook, Congress is negligent, the loyal oppositin party is gutless and amoral and (perhaps not on the same level) Bart is a troll. Now re-read the last sentence and tell me if it is not true.
You all may be right. But kicking out the "troll" might not be the best policy when your quest is such a long shot. Just sayin'
[Hypatia, who is the other troll?]
Hypatia said...
ReplyDeleteIf anyone thinks troll Bart's arguments hold even a scintilla of merit, I would invite you to peruse Glenn's Compendium of NSA Arguments.
Glenn properly frames the legal questions, as the courts would, and answers them.
Glenn can't help you here. None of his posts which you cite address my argument.
I have on multiple occasions posed the same question to Glenn, as I have to the several professors who have offered the Youngstown argument. None have replied with an answer.
In Youngstown, Justice Jackson offers a balancing test to determine which branch of government will prevail in a case of SHARED CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS.
It is undisputed that Article II confers upon the President as CiC the power to direct and conduct warrantless intelligence gathering against foreign groups and their agents in the United States. The federal courts of appeal have unanimously held as much and the Supremes have denied cert from every appeal from those decisions. As Judge Bork observed, Presidents have performed such intelligence gathering for decades, if not since the dawn of the Republic.
Thus, to apply Youngstown, you need to provide a court with evidence that Congress SHARES the President's constitutional power to direct and conduct intelligence gathering against foreign groups and their agents in the US. You need to be able to identify a provision of Article I or at least a court decision creating such a power.
Absent a constitutional provision or a court case, you have no Youngstown argument.
No amount of name calling or distortion will change that legal reality.
anonymous:
ReplyDeleteYes neo-cons are pro Israel but not everyone who is pro Israel is a new-con.
Oh, quite true. A significant number of Christian RW extremists (is that redundant?) are in favour of support for Israel because they think that it's necessary for fulfillment of prophecy for Israel to get into some major (perhaps even nuclear) dustup with the Arab world (on the plains of Ar Magiddon, IIRC), and they think that hastening or helping bring this about will bring about the second coming of Christ. Oh, lucky day!, eh? Of course, the Jews are just cannon fodder and will be annihilated ... but they refused to recognise the divinity of Jesus (if they didn't outright crucify him) so no great loss. Or so the theory goes.
Cheers,
gu
a character smear campaign that is, in equal parts, mindless and vicious, and it comes from usual suspects
ReplyDeleteSo why aren't these guys credibility cards being revoked?
notherbob2: You all may be right. But kicking out the "troll" might not be the best policy when your quest is such a long shot. Just sayin'
ReplyDelete[Hypatia, who is the other troll?]
He's not being kicked out. And your notion that I cannot answer him is absurd; I've answered him, extensively, for months, as have Glenn and many others. He has recycled the same crap over and over, and about 3 weeks ago he posted such grotesque misstatements of an opinion, and has a record of engaging in misdirection and distortion, such that I knew he was doing it on purpose, and told him I now decreed him to be a lying troll. Which he is. I refer you, also, to the NSA Compendium and its 5-6 discussions of Article II inherent authority -- every canard Bart raises and then some have already been thoroughly hashed through.
The other troll, in my view, is -- as I told Jennifer Nix last nite -- Dog. He went on some baseless, fevered rant about Soros money and demanded to know what nefarious backing was behind Glenn's book. Troll.
As the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law clearly demonstrates, Israel's Arab citizens do not have the "exact same" legal status as its Jewish citizens.
ReplyDeleteThis is a quibble. Arab citizens of Israel can vote and own property; they have every legal protection that is afforded their Jewish neighbors, and they are able to practice their faith freely and publicly. They sit in parlaiment and in the courts, and enjoy the protection of the state.
Can the same be said of Jews living in Muslim countries?
It is anti-Semitism to hold the Jews of Israel to a different standard than their neighbors. If you condemn Israel for its self-defense measures, and do not condemn Islamic fascists for their attacks on innocent Jews, you are an anti-Semite. If you single out Israel for the failure of the "peace process," but do not condemn the Arabs for their murderous sabotage of every peace plan ever agreed to, you are an anti-Semite. If you "justify" suicide bombings against Jews, you are an anti-Semite. If you march next to demonstrators carrying signs with caricatures of hook-nosed ,money-grubbing Jews without a peep of protest, you are an anti-Semite.
The left is deeply infected with the poison of anti-Semitism, and until it purges its ranks of this scourge, it will remain politically marginalized and irrelevant.
The other troll, in my view, is -- as I told Jennifer Nix last nite -- Dog.
ReplyDeleteYou and your trolls. Hypatia, with all of your vaunted arguments and breathless legal reasoning, you are clueless as to the political dynamic occurring around these issues. Within a few short weeks this entire NSA controversy will be resolved in the president's favor with votes in the Senate and House with Patriot Act margins. I wouldn't be surprised if the votes occur around the time Glenn's book is released, rendering it poignantly irrelevant as it hits the bookstores.
Then where will you be? Still ranting at the "trolls," I suppose.
Presidential powers are set by the constitution. Congress can not, by a mere law, change the presidential powers set by the consitution.
ReplyDeleteThat is rather like the President changing Congressional rules by Executive Order. In a word-it don't happen.
what a sou'wester the "cynic librarian" is.
ReplyDeleteblowing hard
blowing harder.
a real spring hurricane of verbiage;
lots of snow and sleet, vision very low.
with respect to said "cynic librarian's" comments made early above
about my belief that an israali fifth-column has been operating within the united states government since bush took office
with the purpose of using american military power in the middle east, currently in iraq, to protect and preserve the state of israel:
my comments are not hyperbole
they are metaphor or analogy.
"cynic librarian" needs to get his rhetoric straight,
and in more ways than one.
my comments early above reflect a truth that is little recognized and little discussed in the united states,
a truth that the two professors discuss in detail.
when a bored moron like "cynic librarian" comes down with a case of using the nazi analogy to criticize reasonable commentary,
i recommend the following medicine:
in some of your "quiet" moments in the library,
take the time to read some of the history of the national socialist party in germany in the 1920's and 1930's:
the plan was to discredit each and every social force or institution that could challenge the national socialist party for power.
it worked.
and karl christian rove is implementing the same strategy in the united states today.
off hand suggestion:
read more of the books in your library
you will be less bored
and appear less insufferably foolish in your public comments.
There is a lot of Anti-Semitism on the Left, and that's a continuing source of real pain to me. It's damned near impossible to get into any discussion about Israel, because some - some, not all - on the left begin with the proposition that Israel has no right to exist. They call Israel an "alien" intrusion, by virtue of the fact that it's Jewish and mostly Western in culture - showing an affinity for ethnic purity and monoculturalism they'd never support in any other context.
ReplyDeleteI have no particular problem with questioning AIPAC's influence on US policy - just as I have no particular problem with questioning any international group's influence on US policy. The IRA used to have quite a few defenders in US politics; Saudi Arabia still has an outsized influence on US energy and defense policies; and the Cuban exile community in Miami has shaped and distorted US policy towards Cuba for lo these many years. The Cuban exile community is much smaller than the American Jewish community - and its effects on US policy and politics have been far, far greater. (Cuban Missile Crisis; the Mariel boatlift, and the Elian Gonzales kerfuffle, to name just a few examples.)
Israel, as a sovereign state, has every right to send its ambassadors and leaders to other countries and lobby on its own behalf. Other countries do the same thing.
That Ariel Sharon was able to take advantage of the Bush Administration and get whatever he wanted from it is what leaders of other countries do. Sharon had no duty to American citizens; his duty was to Israel. (Whether he was any good for Israel is quite a different discussion. Personally, I never could stand him and considered his election a disaster of epic proportions for Israel.)
Americans Jews have every right to also organize and lobby on Israel's behalf - just as many other American citizens whose families or themselves originally came from other countries have the right to still care about their old homelands enough to want the US to have positive relations therewith. Do you think Americans of Vietnamese descent had nothing to do with the decision to normalize relations with Vietnam? Do you think Americans of Taiwanese descent don't do their best to make sure the US keeps its promises to protect Taiwan from mainland China? Or do you think that they shouldn't?
The architects of the PNAC, which provided the idelogical basis for the Bush Doctrine, include many neo-con Jews. It also includes many neo-con non-Jews. The enemy is the neo-cons, regardless of religious affiliation.
It's not the questioning of AIPAC's influence that troubles me in and of itself. It's the double standard that somehow anyone who wants to further Israel's interests in the US is more suspect than any other lobby whose purpose is to further any other country's interests in the US. When that suspicion is coupled with revivals of old libels (that Jews "own everything," that we "control the media," and so on) then there's no possible doubt that Anti-Semitism is the underlying theme.
Anomymous:
ReplyDeleteanonymous:
David Horowitz has written extensively on this subject and has carefully documented the phenomenon in numerous of his books.
David Horowitz? The demonstrated fabricator and liar? Say it ain't so. Dunno if anyone can withstand his withering accusations.....
FWIW: I think you meant "in many of his books" or perhaps "in his numerous books". "Numerous" is an adjective.
Cheers,
david:
ReplyDeleteTim Russert even asked on the MTP, (I forget to whom), "Are we going to war for Israel's sake?"
You might take a look at James Bamford's latest book, "A Pretext For War". The origins of the PNAC paper (and the subsequent war in Iraq) are described therein (or you can Google "Bamford" and "PNAC" and find some of his comments online).
Happy reading. Or not. As the case may be.
Cheers,
"Within a few short weeks this entire NSA controversy will be resolved in the president's favor with votes in the Senate and House with Patriot Act margins."
ReplyDeleteI predict the same exact thing, despite my opposite opinion. What is this, scandal number 87? I know this is panning out differently than some of the others, but that doesn't really give me confidence in the conclusion.
Bart, you should have looked at the Constitution before you made your challenge.
ReplyDeleteArticle 1 Section 8 says:
The Congress shall have Power To...
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
(that means Congress has the power to make laws prohibiting torture)
and...
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
(that means establish a legal framework within which the military must operate)
and...
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
(that means creating a legal framework within which everyone, including the President, must operate)
There it is bart, the US Constitution saying Congress can make laws regulating the President's Article 2 powers.
> But one need not agree with them to
ReplyDelete> recognize the importance of the
> issues they raise
Here is the problem with that statement, Glenn:
They assert, i.e. postulate there is an influence of some vague pro-israeli lobby, and then dsh on to argue the consequences of that. If you don't buy their premise, than there is nothing to argue about, and there is nothing important about it. You have to agree with their premise, to find that what they say is important to discuss.
In actuality, what may be important to discuss, is whether such a lobby exists (who is part of it, how are they organized etc.) and how much influence can they xert (in which ways, what are their "levers" of powers). But to start such an argument (which inherently carries a lot of blame), you have to come with a lot of hard facts. Not mere "implications and possible idicators". Hard facts.
By leavin the actually crucial part of their argument out, they are _only_ preaching to people who already share their assertion. And the subject is some vague, in the dark organization which nothing much is said about. I mean, replace "pro-israeli" with "freemason" in their report and you still need to buy a premise, to find their argment "important to discuss, even if it you don't agree with it", but suddenly very few people will stand up for it.
It is possible that I am doing injustice to the authors and that they do have a lot of convincing facts and details as a foundation to the premis of their argument ( and I mean really convincing, not like the usual conspiracy nonsense like "Bush is responsible for 9/11 because of this blurred picture and see how the video is shaking here, that's proof")- however from the page you linked to and everything else I found about it, it doesn't look like it.
Paul Woorward has a good assessment, commentary and associated links to the Mearsheimer and Walt article, Here at The War in Context
ReplyDeleteFor a fair-minded assessment of Arab Israeli rights and conditions, see here
ReplyDeleteAt the risk of fanning the flames a little further, I think the issue on the NSA wiretapping is even simpler.
ReplyDeleteBart and company's contention is that Article II trumps everything is based on the "Commander-in-Chief" provision; given the NSA is technically an arm of the US Army (based as it is on Fort George Meade in Maryland) one would think this all falls under that particular provision and thus is a perfectly legal exercise of the President's authority.
This runs aground on two practical points:
First, nothing in Article II releases the President from his obligation as a US citizen of having to obey the law as duly passed by Congress and that they and their predecessors have signed. FISA was duly passed and signed into law 30 years ago and has remained in force since.
Second, by President Bush's own admission, the NSA surveillence program under discussion falls under the jurisdiction of FISA's provisions. His claims that the authorization process was simply too onerous are, to be blunt, irrelevant from a purely legal standpoint (I can't speak to the practical side of it as I don't know anything about the work habits or schedules of the White House staff, and so won't try). The President, like his predecessors, is obligated to follow the rule of law, and has neither the moral nor legal authority to simply ignore it.
If indeed the provisions of FISA are too onerous, the President and his staff could just as easily request they be amended (as Congress offered in the past); to the best of my knowledge, they have not done so and are continuing to simply ignore the law as written.
There's a third practical issue that Bart and the rest should consider. Say we accept your interpretation of Article II and there are in effect no legal restraints on the President's capacity to use the US military and its assets, that Article I Section 8 has no bearing on this or any other operation the President decides to authorize.
What then is to stop this President or any future one from simply ordering the assassination of foreign or domestic opposition using military assets, or a 'pre-emptive strike' upon a domestic opposition group?
Extreme, even paranoid examples? In light of recent events and actions, I'd call it perfectly rational questions to pose.
And lest the excuse "we are at war" be shouted out, I would point out that legally we aren't at war with anyone. The AUMF doesn't qualify as a formal declaration of war and Congress has passed no such declaration since 1941.
Yes, we are in conflict with a network holding a particularly violent ideology that wishes us harm for various grievances. I'd like to know how you go and declare war, never mind militarily engage, an ideology. As Alan Moore has reminded us: ideas are bullet-proof.
So, to summarize: Bart claims Article II gives the President the authority to order warrantless surveillance of unspecified targets, except Article II doesn't release him from adherence to the US Code, and there are already statutes on the books governing this type of surveillance. Unless there's something hidden provision to the Constitution I'm not seeing, the Article II argument is pretty much null and void here.
Any corrections anyone?
JaO said...
ReplyDeletebart: Thus, to apply Youngstown, you need to provide a court with evidence that Congress SHARES the President's constitutional power to direct and conduct intelligence gathering against foreign groups and their agents in the US. You need to be able to identify a provision of Article I or at least a court decision creating such a power.
The most salient provision has been identified often in this debate, as you well know. In Article I Section 8, Congress has the power "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces."
Thank you for at least attempting to answer the question as posed rather than changing the subject or engaging in name calling.
In United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 (1987), the Supreme Court defined the scope of Article I, Section 8:
We observed that the Constitution explicitly conferred upon Congress the power, inter alia, "[t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces," U.S.Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 14, thus showing that the Constitution contemplated that the Legislative Branch have plenary control over rights, duties, and responsibilities in the framework of the Military Establishment. . . . 462 U.S. at 301. Congress, we noted, had exercised that authority to establis[h] a comprehensive internal system of justice to regulate military life, taking into account the special patterns that define the military structure. Id. at 302.
In over 50 cases applying Article I, Section 8, the Supreme Court only held that it applied to the UCMJ. I am unaware of any case which holds that Article I, Section 8 grants Congress power over any aspect of military command outside of military justice in general or over the direction and conduct of intelligence gathering in particular.
For example, I doubt a court would allow Congress to amend the UCMJ to order the President to spy on Chinese but forbid him from spying on al Qaeda under the claim that this is somehow a military justice matter.
In addition, since we are dealing with regulation of interstate and foreign communications, Congress has power under the Commerce Clause to regulate it and protect it from unlawful intercepts.
Treating the communications between foreign groups and their agents in the United States as economic "commerce" to be regulated is an interesting concept. Do you have any case law to cite which would support this proposition? I can't think of an instance where the courts have stretched the already over-stretched commerce clause to this extent.
And FISA, like Title III, criminalizes certain conduct -- unauthorized wiretapping -- to protect the citizens' privacy under the Necessary and Proper clause.
The Necessary and Proper Clause is what is called an enabling provision. What that means in plain English is that Congress may pass laws which will enable the government to exercise the powers granted in the Constitution. For example, Congress must pass laws creating and then financing the NSA before the President is able to use that organization to exercise his CiC powers.
However, it is completely contrary to the purpose of a provision meant to enable the exercise of government power to hold that Congress may use this provision to limit or eliminate the President's Article II powers.
BTW, the necessary and proper clause has nothing to do with privacy. Indeed, there is no privacy provision of the Constitution beyond what is expressly provided in the Constitution or invented from penumbras by the Supreme Court.
John Roberts explained that analytical process under Justice Jackson's Youngstown framework quite clearly:
"Senator LEAHY: Do you agree that Congress can make rules that may impinge upon the President's command functions?
"Judge ROBERTS. Certainly, Senator. The point that Justice Jackson is making there is that the Constitution vests pertinent authority in these areas in both branches. The President is the Commander in Chief, and that meant something to the Founders. On the other hand, as you just quoted, Congress has the authority to issue regulations governing the Armed Forces, another express provision in the Constitution. Those two can conflict if by making regulations for the Armed Forces, Congress does something that interferes with, in the President's view, his command authority, and in some cases those disputes will be resolved in Court, as they were in the Youngstown case."
Chief Justice Roberts echoes my point concerning the Youngstown case very concisely. When express provisions of the Constitution grant both the President and Congress authority over the same subject matter and a conflict arises, then the Youngstown test is applied.
That is why we are having this discussion attempting to identify an express provision of the Constitution which grants Congress the power to direct and conduct intelligence gathering against foreign groups and their agents in the United States.
I truly appreciate your attempts to honestly address the question and have enjoyed the conversation.
georgelo said...
ReplyDeleteBart, you should have looked at the Constitution before you made your challenge.
I did. Let's see if you did...
Article 1 Section 8 says:
The Congress shall have Power To...
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
(that means Congress has the power to make laws prohibiting torture)
This is a very plausible argument concerning torture. However, we are seeking to determine whether Congress has the power to direct and conduct intelligence gathering.
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
(that means establish a legal framework within which the military must operate)
That is a bit broad. As I just posted with citation, this provision empowers Congress to establish a military justice system.
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
(that means creating a legal framework within which everyone, including the President, must operate)
No. The necessary and proper clause in not some sort of default provision vesting in Congress any power which it finds to be necessary and proper. As I just posted, it is simply an enabling provision allowing Congress to enact statutes to allow the government to use the powers which it is given.
There it is bart, the US Constitution saying Congress can make laws regulating the President's Article 2 powers.
That is a completely unsupported leap. Try rereading the text which you have quoted. It says nothing of the kind. The Constitution provides one method for changing the powers in that document - the amendment process.
jao:
ReplyDeleteThis criminal law applies to everyone -- not just to members of the armed forces, but also the FBI, the Agriculture Department and the Rotary Club, as well as to the President, you and I.
As should be obvious in a constitutional republic, nevermind one that explicitly placed the military under a civilian leader and that gave the "people's body" -- the Congress -- the non-delegable authority to engage in war.
The military isn't exempt from civilian law, and military members can be and are prosecuted for violations of such (they are in addition required to adhere the UCMJ). But HWSNBN here is trying to insinuate (or even outright claim) that the Preznit is "above the law" and answers only to his own authority (as Glenn points out, the "Nixon" theory of gummint, and look where that got Nixon...). This is nonsense, of course, particularly to anyone who's taken eighth grade civics. If this was ever the intent of the Founders or even of Congress, they would have written it into law ... but resident troll HWSNBN can't point to a single place where either has ever said any such thing. The evidence is the opposite: The power to suspend habeas corpus in times of dire emergency was considered by the Founders ... and was given to Congress! So the Founders certainly thought about such things, and their thoughts are pretty clear: They didn't think much of "bending the law", and they thought that even the limited "exceptions" for emergencies were to be handled in a deliberative manner. HWSNBN's "theory" that a preznit needs unfettered and unreviewable authority to wage war is totally unsupported by all available evidence, and even prudential arguments for such "exceptional" powers are unconvincing, not to mention explicitly rebutted by what the Founders actually did.
Cheers,
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteAt the risk of fanning the flames a little further, I think the issue on the NSA wiretapping is even simpler.
Bart and company's contention is that Article II trumps everything...
I never said anything of the kind. In every instance where a provision of Article I of the Constitution grants Congress a specific power over some aspect of the military, Courts have properly held that such powers trump the general power the President exercises as CiC.
What we have been attempting to do here is to find a provision of Article I which expressly grants Congress the power to direct and conduct intelligence gathering which would arguably enable Congress to enact FISA to trump the President's general Article II power.
This runs aground on two practical points:
First, nothing in Article II releases the President from his obligation as a US citizen of having to obey the law as duly passed by Congress and that they and their predecessors have signed. FISA was duly passed and signed into law 30 years ago and has remained in force since.
An unconstitutional law is null and void from the outset and no one has a duty to obey it.
There's a third practical issue that Bart and the rest should consider. Say we accept your interpretation of Article II and there are in effect no legal restraints on the President's capacity to use the US military and its assets, that Article I Section 8 has no bearing on this or any other operation the President decides to authorize.
There is a very good argument that the President may not use the military to commit an act of war without a declaration of war or an equivalent AUMF from Congress.
What then is to stop this President or any future one from simply ordering the assassination of foreign or domestic opposition using military assets, or a 'pre-emptive strike' upon a domestic opposition group?
Its called the Bill of Rights.
And lest the excuse "we are at war" be shouted out, I would point out that legally we aren't at war with anyone. The AUMF doesn't qualify as a formal declaration of war and Congress has passed no such declaration since 1941.
I would disagree. You are arguing semantics. A declaration of war is simply Congressional authority to use military force. An AUMF is the same thing.
my thanks to "cynic librarian" and "nuf said"
ReplyDeletefor very informative links to issues relating to the israeli "lobby".
it is pleasing to see among commenters here discussion of both that issue and the issue of the 50-year mistreatment of arabs who inhabited palestine before the european powers made it into israel.
with respect to critical comments about israel and israeli political activity,
it is not possible to do anything other than guess at the motives behind a criticism of israel or its supporters in the u.s.
thus charges of "anti-semitism" or its verbal equivalents are no more than guesses as to the motives of a critic.
as i pointed out in my original comment way above,
"israel" refers to a country, not a religion or an ethnic group.
the criterion for evalutating ciriticism of israel is not the motives of the critics
but the congruence of their criticsm with political facts, political reality.
jao:
ReplyDeleteThe original Articles of War, enacted during the Revolutionary War, contained provisions requiring military commanders to ensure that troops respected the property of civilians, for example. The modern equivalent, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, is entirely an act of Congress. And even in wartime, members of the armed forces in the United States are supposed to be accountable for violations of criminal law, including the criminal sanctions contained within FISA.
The troll HWSNBN wants to pretend that the UCMJ is the sole and exclusive means by which Congress can regulate the military. This is nonsense, of course, and the Constitution never even mentions the UCMJ (predating it by quite some time). Not to mention, you don't get different speed limits if you happen to be a member of the military, and you still have to pay your parking tickets (I'd note that Congress expressly passed some exemptions for servicement WRT tax filings, voter registration, etc., but absent any such express exemption -- which is within the power of Congress to do -- Congressional silence means the military is subject to the same laws as anyone else). And Bart conveniently ignores the fact that many servicemen have been tried for crimes (including murder) in civilan courts. The idea that the UCMJ is the extent of Congress's reach WRT laws affecting the military is patent nonsense. Or just another "red herring" by the troll HWSNBN.
Cheers,
To Bart -
ReplyDeleteIf your argument isn't based on Article II, Section 2 basically overriding everything, please spell out exactly *what* your argument is? At this point I'm honestly lost.
As to the contention FISA is "unconstitutional", sorry, but I'm not aware of any Court judgment stating this. Unless I'm much mistaken, the only official body empowered to make such a determination is the Supreme Court, and they haven't ruled any such thing. You and I and pretty much the entire country can think and argue FISA or DOMA or any one of the millions of other federal statutes are 'unconstitutional', but we are still bound to obey them until SCOTUS rules against them.
And yes, there is a very, very good argument against a President not utilizing the military for activity normally reserved for war. Ideally the Bill of Rights (if not simple human decency) would stand in the way of the scenarios I'd suggested.
Unfortunately, we are in a period where the term 'war' seems to have lost its strict legal connotations and it gets bandied about to describe any manner of conflict or ideological crusade (War on Poverty, War on Drugs, Abortion Wars, etc.). This is why it is NOT simply arguing semantics to say the AUMF is NOT the legal or proximate equivalent of a formal Declaration of War. It is the practical equivalent, granted, but potentially lacking the clear legal boundaries of who or what the enemy is as provided by a Declaration of War. If the enemy is vague or left undefined, what is to stop anyone/everyone from becoming 'the enemy' in the eyes of the current or future administration?
Nice try, Bart. Really.
Look, none of us can criticize Israel. Criticism of Israel is simply not allowed.
ReplyDeleteWe cannot question the actions/inactions of the Israeli government.
We cannot suggest that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee may/may not have broken the law.
That's what this is all about.
You can profess your appreciation for Israel, your opposition to any and all forms of anti-Semitism, your disgust that the Holocaust happened over and over and over again. It will not matter.
Question Israel, and you will be branded in the starkest, most vile manner imaginable.
America does not allow for a critical analysis of Israel, its assets and its weaknesses.
That's just a fact. So accept it.
ktxjpDear Ramesh (from a college friend),
ReplyDeleteIn your response to Glenn, you state:
"Feingold's resolution cites, as one of the reasons for censuring the president, that the president has deceived the public about the program. For example, the president claims that the program was 'necessary' when, according to the resolution, it wasn't. In other words, Feingold wants to censure the president in part because he had the temerity to defend his program. The senator is making a disagreement into an offense."
That's pretty selective (some might say misleading) quoting. As you know, the passage of the Feingold resolution that you cite states:
“President George W. Bush has, since the public disclosure of the [NSA] surveillance program, falsely implied that the program was necessary BECAUSE THE EXECUTIVE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO WIRETAP SUSPECTED TERRORISTS INSIDE THE UNITED STATES”
(Sorry about the ALL CAPS, but that’s the only way I can find to emphasize the key language.) So the Resolution doesn’t chastise President Bush for claiming that the program was “necessary.” Rather, it chastises him for founding those claims of necessity on a falsehood: that he didn’t have the authority to wiretap without the NSA program. As any reasonable reading of FISA reveals, he did in fact have authority to initiate wiretaps so long as he sought judicial approval within 72 hours.
That’s a little different from the straight-up disagreement over the program’s necessity that you imply. It’s a disagreement over the honesty of the rationale used by the president to justify the program’s necessity.
Come on, Ramesh. You’re better than this.
Yours,
JT, P’95.
JaO said...
ReplyDeleteWhat Congress has done with FISA is not an interference with specific commands. Rather, the statute outlines a general set of procedures and regulations, and requires the executive to abide by them. Congress is not selecting specific subjects for surveillance; the executive is. But the executive must act within the definitions, standards of proof and procedures specified in the statute.
Interesting point, but no cigar.
FISA is entirely an effort by Congress to assume the Presidential command duty of deciding who shall be a target of intelligence gathering. It has no other purpose. If the President cannot meet the standards set forth in FISA, Congress wishes to bar him from spying on that enemy.
There is no effective difference between a negative proscription and a positive order. Congress is equally interfering with the President's command authority if it passed a bill forbidding FDR from invading Normandy as it would if it passed a bill mandating that FDR invade Normandy.
yankeependragon I have one slight correction to your admirable summation. Like most summations, it is what is left out, not in the material covered that one discerns the key issue of a case. Often, a case hinges on the slight detail that is somehow not included in the defense attorney’s summation at all. If we are to believe the defense counsel, that detail is of such minor importance that it hardly need be mentioned. Of course, some jurors may think it interesting that the prosecution dwelt on that very detail for half of their presentation. Odd that.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, the small detail that you have left out consists of four little words in Judge Jackson’s ruling in the Youngstown case. Not dicta. (nice try, Hypatia) So, your summary needs one addition to be well nigh perfect. Where you say: “except Article II doesn't release him from adherence to the US Code...” you need to insert right after “Code” the following: “except in exceptional circumstances.”
Why would a defense attorney leave out just those words? Well, like a fulcrum, they pivot the entire issue into a discussion of whether or not the GWOT is an exceptional circumstance. Clearly (a favorite word of defense attorneys) it is exceptional. So one must argue that it is not THAT exceptional in order to entrap the President in the net of the Youngstown case. Johnny Cochrane would say: “If exceptional’s a fit, you must acquit.”
If you have a problem with this addition, go read the ruling in the Youngstown case or any given quotation of it that does not contain “...” where the reference to exceptional circumstances goes.
I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t risk my political career or the reputation of my party on whether or not a court would find the GWOT to be an exceptional case. We know what the Democrats think. What do you think? Just another GWOT, like all the others, what is all the fuss about?
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteTo Bart -
If your argument isn't based on Article II, Section 2 basically overriding everything, please spell out exactly *what* your argument is? At this point I'm honestly lost.
:::sigh:::
Give me strength, Lord.
1) The President's CiC power is a general power to command all incidents of the military of which intelligence on foreign groups and their agents in the US is but one.
2) Article I grants Congress several specific powers over the military. If the Congress passes a statute pursuant to one of these specific powers, courts have routinely held that the statute trumps the President's general Article II power over the military.
3) You folks claim that FISA is just such a statute.
4) I am asking for you to show me the specific Article I power which enables Congress to direct and conduct intelligence gathering which would give FISA the authority to limit or eliminate the President's Article II power.
This is your last remedial class on this subject.
"Neo-nazi" "anti-semites" (like those aren't smears), unchosen white people have been pointing at the rabid racist Israel lobby the whole time and it takes two professors aping their work to wake everyone up?
ReplyDeleteThank you. You prove the professors' point so clearly, so distinctly! You are a living, vivid personal demonstration of the validity of their argument.
Thanks again!
Bart, it's hard to believe the founders, who fought for freedom from a king, would write a Constitution that allowed a President to act as king. You say:
ReplyDeleteThe Necessary and Proper Clause is what is called an enabling provision. What that means in plain English is that Congress may pass laws which will enable the government to exercise the powers granted in the Constitution. For example, Congress must pass laws creating and then financing the NSA before the President is able to use that organization to exercise his CiC powers.
Your interpretation is too narrow here. Here's why:
According to your line of reasoning the president could order the military to arrest and execute me using his Commander in Chief powers disregarding all statute that would make my death a crime, because, according to you, Congress can't regulate his Commander in Chief powers. Sorry bart, that dog won't hunt.
In FISA Congress doesn't say the President can't spy on our enemies (that would be interfering with his CinC powers), Congress mandates the President must abide by the 4th Amendment when he chooses to spy on us.
yankeependragon--
ReplyDelete"Unless I'm much mistaken, the only official body empowered to make such a determination is the Supreme Court, and they haven't ruled any such thing. You and I and pretty much the entire country can think and argue FISA or DOMA or any one of the millions of other federal statutes are 'unconstitutional', but we are still bound to obey them until SCOTUS rules against them."
The idea here (on the administration's side, that is) is that all three branches are capable of interpreting the Constitution. The Judicial interpretation might have the most authority, but until it rules, the other branches can read the Constitution as they see fit--so the idea goes, anyway. (What would be a really bad situation would be if Congress or the President decided this meant they could ignore a SCOTUS ruling. I think there would be ways out of that impasse, but let's seriously hope it never comes to that.)
"Unfortunately, we are in a period where the term 'war' seems to have lost its strict legal connotations and it gets bandied about to describe any manner of conflict or ideological crusade (War on Poverty, War on Drugs, Abortion Wars, etc.)."
True, the phrase "War on Terror" is often used to describe what we are doing. But this is just a catchy phrase. That's not actually the claim that's being made here.
The AUMF is somewhat specific--it was directed against "those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons"
The problem here, I think, is that it leaves the decision about who these nations, organizations, and persons are to the President. If the President determines that Iraq was such a nation, for example, then the AUMF is still active.
Furthermore, we haven't signed a peace treaty with Al Qaida yet. That also suggests the AUMF is still active, with or without Iraq.
There's also a case to be made that Congress could revoke this authorization any time it wants. The fact that they haven't, and that we don't yet have a peace treaty with Al Qaida suggests it's still in force.
"This is why it is NOT simply arguing semantics to say the AUMF is NOT the legal or proximate equivalent of a formal Declaration of War. It is the practical equivalent, granted, but potentially lacking the clear legal boundaries of who or what the enemy is as provided by a Declaration of War."
But the administration has an argument for that, too--that's where Yoo's work comes in. The idea is that "war" is a state of conflict, and happens whenever one nation attacks another. We were de facto at war with Japan after Pearl Harbor, with or without a formal declaration. There is admittedly some evidence that the Founders had this understanding (you should read Yoo's work if you haven't already.) So, "Declaring War" is just a kind of committment by Congress to do whatever the war calls for.
Outside of that, the idea goes, the President does have authority, as CiC, to retaliate against attacks with or without the support of Congress--he just doesn't have the power to go much further than simple retaliation or basic defense. So, the AUMF is just a way for Congress to agree that we're in that situation.
This is why the administrations' argument is a little funny. I guess it amounts to saying "Well, Congress passed the AUMF, so they must also agree with us (even if they didn't speficically say so) that we can ignore FISA."
I'm not sure how I feel about these ideas, but they at least seem plausible, though they also seem stretched. In the end, however, I agree that the courts are the ones who need to rule on the Constitutionality of FISA and the administration's actions--and that they in fact will, sooner or later.
"If the enemy is vague or left undefined, what is to stop anyone/everyone from becoming 'the enemy' in the eyes of the current or future administration?"
It does seem like there has to be some limit on the President's authority here. The problem is, what if that limit is Congress, and they're unwilling to do anything about it?
notherbob2 is confused: In this case, the small detail that you have left out consists of four little words in Judge Jackson’s ruling in the Youngstown case. Not dicta. (nice try, Hypatia)
ReplyDeleteI don't know what you are talking about, and neither do you. At no point have I said or implied that "except in exceptional circumstances" constituted dicta.
Indeed, I have elaborated at great length as to the examples of such circumstances set forth by Justice Jackson in his Opinion, e.g., insurrection and rebellion.
The SCOTUS is not going to liken the "war" on terrorism, which will go on until 2050 or so, as circumstances that put Bush and presidents to come above the law for half a century. Indeed, in her Hamdi Opinion (for the Court) O'Connor declared that Bush has no "blank check" to do as he pleases in the name of the war on terror, pointed to the duration of it, and said it was not tenable to maintain Mr. Hamdi as an enemy combatant with no chance for judicial procedure, for what could well be his natural lifetime.
this commenter, SST
ReplyDeletesounds to me like a typical "true believer"
intensely loyal - to the point of being unable to comment articulately,
delighted to invent and knock down straw men
frothing with rage at any hint of disagreement with or disparragement of his "beloved"
point in case:
"it just so happens there never was such a country called palestine ..."
that's correct.
1) it's also correct that i did not claim there was a country called palestine.
you, sst, in your haste to defend your beloved on grounds you are comfortable with, made up that bit about a "country of palestine"
but
2)there was a british protectorate called palestine and, in general, that region had been called palestine for centuries in europe.so, my comment was entirely reasonable.
"the european countries brought that about"
apparently you disagree with my comment: "...before the europeans made it into israel."
in 1917 british foreign minister balfour made a proclamtion supporting a "national home" for jews in palestine.
in 1922 britian was given a mandate over palestine. in 1937, britain concluded that arabs and jews could not live together effectivley and the u.k.'s Peel commission recommended partition of palestine into jewish and arab sections.
in 1947, the british wanted out of palestine, and turned the matter over to the united nations (a largely americans/european organization at the time).
in nov 1947 the u.n. voted to partition palestine into arab and jewish sections.
in may, 1948 the state of israel was proclaimed.
the support of european nations was critical to the creation of the state of israel both thru formal diplomacy and aid, and thru informal support, much of it as a consequence of the holocaust.
"well what other country gets criticized for it's right to exist like you just did?"
there is no comment of mine, nor any fair inference from any comment of mine,
that would support this paticular criticsim by sst.
sst: dumb and dumber
for more on loyalty, passion, and the difficulty true believers have in seeing reality clearly
take a look at
eric hoffer's "The True Believer"
notherbob2, after consulting Barry Bonds, his mother, his yearbook, and his pants, stumbles up the stairs to proclaim-
ReplyDeleteVery interesting, HereKittyKitty. What other fantasies did you have when you were a "band nerd" in high school?
This is exactly the point. You have no chops...no brass. You can't argue the facts, so you resort to name calling. In a feeble attempt to level the playing field or a misguided hope that people are too polite to follow you down, you come up with "moonbats."
I am not polite.
You are an amateur. You couldn't troll if your life depended on it. You can't even hold your own in an internet slap fight. My suggestion is to move your arguments back into the realm of facts because you are getting your ass kicked down here.
You want to pull this into a partisan sphere because your prerecorded messages are ineffective and absurd without that context. Your biggest fear is that this issue is above parties so you poke the bees nest hoping to find/create your mythical "moonbats." What you found instead was a hibernating bear that is so fucking tired of this left/right bullshit that there will be no sleep until ALL the idiots with pointed sticks are marginalized and sent back to the basement.
I don't care either way. I like slapping around the snotty kids of crappy parents. It takes a village ya know.
To Bart -
ReplyDeleteThank you. Your point is much clearer now.
As has been repeated, almost ad nauseum here, President Bush himself admitted early on that the program under discussion *did* fall under the FISA framework. He did not argue, then or now, that FISA itself was either unconstitutional nor an impediment to his C-i-C authority. I believe that can be considered at least a tacit admission on his part that the law was neither.
(btw. I will welcome any correction on this)
That said, it has also been noted here that FISA does *not* so much limit the President's power to authorize surveillance of foreign targets as it establishes a legal framework *specifically* to protect American citizens from government intrusion prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.
I'm hard pressed to see how this might counter Article II in some way, shape or form; if anything FISA merely sets common sense boundaries to prevent the sort of abuses we are now seeing indications of.
Your request for a power spelled out in Article I giving Congress superior authority over the President's in this case is (at least in my estimation) asking the wrong question. Argue whether FISA is 'unconstitutional' all you wish; until the SCOTUS rules otherwise, it is the law of the land.
Like any law it can be amended to fit new circumstances, but it cannot simply be ignored because the current administration finds its minimal provisions an inconvenience.
In any case, Article I, Section 8 provision of "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces" can be interpreted as allowing Congress some level of control on this issue. The inherent vagueness of the provision (like most of the rest of the Constitution) allows for reinterpretation over time, though I think this would satisfy the Courts that the President's inherent authority is still respected while ensuring the rest of the Constitution is likewise left intact.
A better question to ask is: does the Office of the President of the United States have the authority to unilaterally declare a US Statute null and void without judicial review?
Wrong twice Hypatia. I do know what I am talking about and so do you. Unlike you, I don't claim to know what the SCOTUS will rule. Neither do the Democrats.
ReplyDeleteHow many Democrats are in Congress? Each is carrying a six-gun and they haven't shot at this snake (introduced an impeachment resolution) once. You can yell SNAKE! SNAKE! as loud as you want, but until some Democrat fires a shot, it ain't there. Senator Feingold et al have joined in the chorus of SNAKE! SNAKE!, but so far there is no cigar (to mix a metaphor).
sst:
ReplyDeletelike i said
a true believer who constructs his own reality to criticize - the straw man aspect of fanaticism.
the november,1947 vote in the united nations on the patition of palestine was :
33 for
13 against
10 abstain
of the 33 for all but five were nations of europe or the americas (autralia, new zealand, liberia, phillipines, south africa).
the 13 in opposition were:
afghanistan, cuba, egypt, greece, india, iran, iraq,lebanon,pakistan, saudi arabia, syria, turkey, and yemen.
the 10 abstaining were:
argentiana, chile, china, colombia, el salvador, ethipopia, honduras, mexico, united kingdom, and yugoslavia.
"the true votes up for grabs in the general assembly on the Partition vote were the latin american and african nations"
you play your staw man word game again, sst.
what votes were "up for grabs" is not an issue i raise in any my comments, nor does it refute in any way the fact of the enormous influence of the u.s. and the european nations who had experienced wwII.
but
since you raise the issue
who do you think would be grabbing these "votes up for grabs"? maybe some european and american diplomats?
"to say that the UN general assembly was completely controlled by the US and Europe at that time is mistating history."
another trivial word game set up, sst.
the operative phrase here seems to be "completely controlled".
the united states and the nations of western europe were enormously influential in the u.n. decison to partition palestine.
who else would have been influential but these, sst?
liberia maybe? the phillipines? afghanistan? ethiopia? maybe india in 1947? not likely.
your final three paragraphs are too foolish to merit extended comment.
"so yes when you say that the only reason israel exists is because of european control 50 years ago you are completely wrong."
i did not say or imply that this was the only reason
but since your raise the question,
what are some other "reasons" that come to your mind, sst?
"as a matter of fact the only reason that jordon, iraq, syria, and other middle eastern countries are on the map...."
tell me, sst, would you not put israel in this group also?
"there was no such thing as a jordanian, a syrian, a palestinian just a short time ago..."
would you not add "israeli's" to this list also?
loyal sst
soldiering on
dumb and
dumber.
A poster named "plunger" did extraordinary work yesterday in laying out the case against Israel and posted numerous links for further research. As of 11:45 pacific time, nearly all of the links have been disabled.
ReplyDeleteNow who would have the authority or the power to disable links? How is this done? Was it done on the Crooks & Liars site itself? Or were the actual remote sites hacked and the links disabled that way?
georgelo said...
ReplyDeleteBart, it's hard to believe the founders, who fought for freedom from a king, would write a Constitution that allowed a President to act as king.
They didn't and neither am I. You are creating your own straw man.
Bart: The Necessary and Proper Clause is what is called an enabling provision. What that means in plain English is that Congress may pass laws which will enable the government to exercise the powers granted in the Constitution. For example, Congress must pass laws creating and then financing the NSA before the President is able to use that organization to exercise his CiC powers.
Your interpretation is too narrow here. Here's why:
According to your line of reasoning the president could order the military to arrest and execute me using his Commander in Chief powers disregarding all statute that would make my death a crime, because, according to you, Congress can't regulate his Commander in Chief powers. Sorry bart, that dog won't hunt.
Hardly. The 5th Amendment prohibits deprivation of life without due process and Congress has the power to enact criminal laws.
In FISA Congress doesn't say the President can't spy on our enemies (that would be interfering with his CinC powers), Congress mandates the President must abide by the 4th Amendment when he chooses to spy on us.
Actually, no.
1) Unless you are calling an al Qaeda number or they are calling you, the NSA program is not spying on you.
2) The courts have held repeatedly that the 4th Amendment does not require warrants to conduct intelligence gathering against foreign groups and their agents in the US.
3) FISA's standards are below that of the 4th Amendment.
Timely post, Glenn. I wrote to Salazar (who is my representative, given that I live in Colorado) and received the "we need a full investigation" excuse in reply. I was going to respond, but his stupid web-based email system was BROKEN. It's a PITA to begin with, and now his staffers have broken it.
ReplyDeleteEven if he weren't such a toady for having no opinion on a matter striking to the very core of our system of government, the fact that - in this day and age - he can't even keep a working email account tells me that he's hopelessly out of touch with his constituents.
I voted for him once. Never again.
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteThat said, it has also been noted here that FISA does *not* so much limit the President's power to authorize surveillance of foreign targets as it establishes a legal framework *specifically* to protect American citizens from government intrusion prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.
FISA has nothing to do with the 4th Amendment.
The courts have unanimously held that the 4th Amendment does not require warrants to conduct searches for intelligence gathering against foreign powers and their agents in the US.
Moreover, FISA's warrant standards are lower than those required by the 4th Amendment.
Your request for a power spelled out in Article I giving Congress superior authority over the President's in this case is (at least in my estimation) asking the wrong question. Argue whether FISA is 'unconstitutional' all you wish; until the SCOTUS rules otherwise, it is the law of the land.
Like any law it can be amended to fit new circumstances, but it cannot simply be ignored because the current administration finds its minimal provisions an inconvenience.
Actually, it can be ignored. All unconstitutional laws are null and void from the outset.
For example, Let's say Congress passed a law requiring the Army to shoot you down on sight. The law obviously violates your right to life without due process of law. Should the President enforce this law until you can get a court to rule on its constitutionality?
To notherbob2 -
ReplyDeleteYes, I left out the "except in exceptional circumstances". Do I think that omission (which wasn't really intentional) necessarily trumps my central point that the President is still as bound by the US Code as the rest of us?
In present circumstances, no.
The onus is on the President and his administration to actually prove circumstances are 'exceptional' he can and must move outside the law, even if they must do so after-the-fact. This administratin (which I sometimes wonder if it isn't made up of nothing but escapees from a Douglas Adams or Robert Heinlein novel) has yet to assert such either publically or privately.
Like everyone here, I have no idea whether the SCOTUS would agree if they were to even try. It might be interesting to watch.
Regardless, until such a challenge is mounted by the administration itself in Court, my original point stands.
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteThe onus is on the President and his administration to actually prove circumstances are 'exceptional' he can and must move outside the law, even if they must do so after-the-fact. This administratin (which I sometimes wonder if it isn't made up of nothing but escapees from a Douglas Adams or Robert Heinlein novel) has yet to assert such either publically or privately.
They don't need to. The Article II powers which we have been discussing are not limited to wartime.
To Bart -
ReplyDeleteWell, you certainly have your arguments prepared.
I'm curious now: what exactly about FISA and its already-low standards for warrants do you find objectionable? It doesn't dictate to the President they can't authorize surveillance on foreign targets, merely requires they have a minimal legal justification (even after the fact) to do so. This obviously has enormous Fourth Amendment implications, even if the original statute doesn't deal with or address that amendment directly.
As to your example of an 'unconstitutional' law, well, its a tad extreme and so egregious I can't really envision it passing both houses and being signed without an immediate court challenge. I maintain that FISA, by contrast, does nothing to impede or counter Article II's provisions for the President; its merely there to keep him or her honest.
I'll answer your question anyway: yes, until the courts strike it down, that law would be constitutional. You and I cannot decide whether a law is or isn't constitutional; that's for the courts.
To Bart -
ReplyDeleteWe certainly agree there. Article II is in effect 24/7/365, as is the rest of the Constitution.
My point remains however that Presidents remain as bound by the law, whether during war or peace, until they feel it necessary to step outside of it under 'exceptional circumstances'. They are expected to answer for doing so, before or after the fact, and to return to the rule of law as quickly as possible.
No, this isn't spelled out anywhere in the Constitution or elsewhere. Simple humanity and common sense however should be enough.
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteTo Bart -
Well, you certainly have your arguments prepared.
I'm curious now: what exactly about FISA and its already-low standards for warrants do you find objectionable?
FISA requires that the government have sufficient evidence to provide probable cause that the persons speaking in the tapped telephone lines are foreign agents.
However, based on what the press has leaked about the program, the NSA is tapping international telephone calls where one end is a telephone number captured from al Qaeda.
Mere possession of a telephone number by al Qaeda is not probable cause that the person using that number is al qaeda. It could be the possessor's favorite falafel maker.
Thus, as best as I can tell, the NSA cannot meet FISA standards in most cases.
Based on the fact that both bills before Congress remove the probable cause standard or water it down into non existence, I tend to think my read of the situations is accurate.
Orionatl...aside for the fact that you are just wrong in your argument that it was Europe who created Israel, what are you trying to argue? What are you trying to prove with that? It sounds to me like you are trying to say there is no legitimate basis for the state of Israel in the first place. You are skewing your interpretation of history to fit the idea that Israel should not exist. You have steered the debate here towards Israel's very right to exist. That in itself is anti-Semitic. You also called Israel a "parasite." Your predisposed bias renders your opinion completely worthless. Furthermore, resorting to name-calling against someone, SST, who presented you with nothing but factual information is flat-out dumb in and of itself. If you think someone is dumb and truly believe that, the way to fix the situation is by informing them, not name calling, but you are so incredibly anti-Semitic that you cannot be dealt with. There is clearly a distinction between being against a policy of Israel and the country's right to exist. Your view is even more extreme than the article that sparked this debate in the first place.
ReplyDeleteGlenn,
ReplyDeleteI wonder if you could take a minute and visit your post at C&L regarding the AIPAC flap article in the London Times.
All of the links that were put on the comments by a certain "plunger" were disabled. But someone was able to take the links, paste them into their own folder, and Google them, and they worked.
Does this mean that C&L actually deleted the links?
Glenn, you post there, you're a regular. Could you verify whether or not C&L was actually deleting the links in the comment section? It seems incredible, but the people at C&L posting to your contribution there would like some answers.
See this comment:
I pasted all the links to my folder. I tried on google, and it worked.
Crooksandliars are deleting from their server. Hypocrites! They want this nation to be safe and yet, are in denial. Great! plunger, do you trust these people too?
bart sez at 5:01 PM...
ReplyDeleteFISA has nothing to do with the 4th Amendment.
...then sez at 5:35 PM (emphasis mine)...
FISA requires that the government have sufficient evidence to provide probable cause that the persons speaking in the tapped telephone lines are foreign agents.
Uh-huh. Those two words just happened to be picked out of the ether when said Act was drafted.
Do you ever wonder why people consider you a troll?
Bart says:
ReplyDelete...
Hardly. The 5th Amendment prohibits deprivation of life without due process and Congress has the power to enact criminal laws.
...
1) Unless you are calling an al Qaeda number or they are calling you, the NSA program is not spying on you.
2) The courts have held repeatedly that the 4th Amendment does not require warrants to conduct intelligence gathering against foreign groups and their agents in the US.
3) FISA's standards are below that of the 4th Amendment.
Bart, you claim the 5th Amendment would protect me from a presidtial overreach and I agree it should.
The 5th amendment says in part:
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
Now, let's consider Jose Padilla...
on to your next points,
1) you don't know who the NSA is listening to so this is really a straw man. Oh, I know what the President has said about it, but remember, he also said this type of thing requires a warrant, so he really has no credibility on this issue. Remember, these are the same people who said VP Cheney couldn't talk to a sheriff's deputy after shooting someone because of National Security.
2)We're not talking about foreign agents we're talking about safeguarding American's 4th amendment rights from governmental abuse.
3)You base this claim on what????
sst's comments on israel are typical Israeli propaganda and for each assertion there is a counter-assertion to the contrary. There are numerous books on the issue. Take your pick. I suggest starting with the New Historians who have delved deep into Israeli archives and unearthed some pretty ugly facts about the leaders and their program of persecution of Palestinians.
ReplyDeleteoffpeak34
ReplyDeleteat first it occurred to me that you were sst's clone,
but a moment's reflection brought the understanding that that couldn't be because your capacity to read, understand, and analyze accurately is even more deficient than sst's.
on the other hand, your skill (if that's the right word) at constructing verbal strawmen dressed as my arguments exceeds that of sst.
i figure you and sst are part of some tag-team of loyal defenders - of what i'm don't know and i'm not sure you know either -
always ready at a moments notice to ride forth in all directions, waving your swords wildly above your heads, all the while loudly screaming some hoary war-cry.
as for my analogy to parasites, it seems self-evidently reasonable to use that analogy when speaking of the israeli's state's use of american miltary, diplomatic, and economic power to achieve goals that are deemed more useful to israel than to the united states.
the specific case of immediate concern is the u.s. invasion of iraq which was conceived, and in some cases, managed by american right-wingers with close ties to the israeli right-wing.
my comments, which you dissassembled and then reassembled to match arguments you are comfortable with
stated my belief that:
"the central characters in the rush to war with iraq constitute an israeli fifth-column operating within the united states government"
and
"this israeli fifth-column has essentially operated as a leech-like or paramecium- like parasite would in a host - using the energy and capacity of the host to serve its own needs for food and safety, without regard to the consequences for the host."
you may recall that paul wolfowitz, douglas feith, and david wurmser were extremely high ranking u.s. government officials directly associate with both the conception and prosecution of the war against iraq.
if one observes patiently, or in my case impatiently, each true-believing goofball like offpeak34 will sooner or later provide a self-indicting, self-parodying sentence or two.
in offpeak34's case the sentence from his comment just above is:
"you have steered the debate here toward israel's very right to exist."
the person who steered this debate "toward israel's very right to exist" was in fact
offpeak34.
in none of my comments does the issue of israel's existence arise.
nor does that issue have any bearing on any argument i have made.
nor does that issue arise in my private thinking.
another sentence that reveals the clouded mind and limited analytical ability of this true believer is:
"resorting to name calling against someone, sst, who presented you with nothing but factual information is flat-out dumb in and of itself."
if you had read and understood my previous comments you would have realized that it was the very fact that some of sst's comments were not "factual information" and some of his inferences and assumptions in error, that lead me to comment in the first place.
so in conclusion let me reiterate
sst:
dumb and dumber.
and his tag-team buddy
offbase34:
a rapid reader but one with comprehension problems
or maybe just
a slow, earnest propagandist.
"some guy" said:
ReplyDeleteThe AUMF is somewhat specific--it was directed against "those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons"
The problem here, I think, is that it leaves the decision about who these nations, organizations, and persons are to the President. If the President determines that Iraq was such a nation, for example, then the AUMF is still active.
Which is an argument that it was not a declaration of war. The power to declare war is, as is the power to write laws (i.e., legislation), an exclusive and non-delegable power. Congress can't simply say, "We can't decide ourselves exactly who we should be at war with and why, so we give you, Dubya, the authority to decide who we're at war with and when." No "blank checks" allowed. IMNSHO.
Cheers,
Look Pen-dragin’, you seem a sincere sort. So let’s move completely away from NSA, but keep the rules the same and see if we can sort this out.
ReplyDeleteSay you are a mother in Alaska. The speed limit between your house and the hospital has been set at 45 mph because they cannot change it with the weather and when it is snowing that is as fast as it is safe to go. On a sunny day in July, you have a child who is blue and unresponsive after swallowing a toy ball. Having tried everything you know to help the child cough the ball up, you place the child in a proper safety seat, properly installed and head out for the hospital. You drive a BMW and pride yourself on your driving skill, which has been favorably remarked upon by all of your acquaintances ( even your husband!). You drive 65 to 75 mph to the hospital. An officer clocks your speed and follows you to the hospital and gives you a tcket.
This is where the analogy breaks down. Of course you save your child’s life, gladly pay the ticket and life goes on. Not the point. The question is: if you are that mother, do you drive 45 mph, thus obeying the law, or do you get the child to the hospital as fast as you can?
In effect, in the NSA controversy, you are in the position of screaming at the mother that she violated the law. Driving in the summertime was an exceptional circumstance to the law. Those who wrote the speeding law in Alaska were not drafting the Constitution. So they just wrote the law and left it to the judge to handle the rest. If you were the judge, would you fine this mother if the officer testified that she was in control and endangered no one? Maybe, maybe not, it is only a traffic violation.
My point is that sometimes we need to “break the law” and it is not a big deal. It is only a big deal when partisans want to impeach the President. Then, just about anything at all will do. What makes you a Moonbat is that you cannot see the inaction on the part of the Democrat Senators for what it is. You are howling at the moon, absent some evidence that Bush is spying on other than al qaeda folks or those in contact with them, with a venal motive.
arne--
ReplyDelete"Which is an argument that it was not a declaration of war."
Yes, I agree. Authorizations of force aren't declarations of war. But the argument goes, if someone attacks us, then the President has the authority to retaliate in some suitable way. Read Yoo; it's actually a kind of convincing argument. It's hard to say he couldn't. Why couldn't he? Were we not at war with Japan immediately after they bombed Pearl Harbor?
What he can't do, however, is mobilize the entire nation to wage indefinite war against an enemy without a declaration, I would say. But if he continues to act as though we're at war with Al Qaeda, and Congress does nothing...what does that mean? Doesn't that suggest Congress agrees with him, that whatever he's doing is in retaliation for 9/11? It's a troubling problem. Frankly, if there's a new government in Afghanistan, and we've declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq...then I think there's a strong case to be made that the 9/18 AUMF is no longer in force.
notherbob2--
ReplyDeleteYes, I was thinking along the same lines. The problem is, this was a federal law, passed by Congress and signed by the chief executive. It is the law of the land, not just some state or municipality. Breaking a law like that is serious business. I'm not saying there couldn't possibly be a good enough reason for it. I am wondering, however, whether we are really in a situation that demands it. (And there might not be any precedent for it at all...and note that not even the defenders of the President are making this argument.)
Besides, that's not even the argument the administration is making...
It had been a "war for oil" for the longest time, saying "war for Israel" was the unspeakable truth.
ReplyDeleteDoes any political party have the stones to go against the Zionist Chosenites, and bring the wrath of being called an "anti-semite"; the strongest curse word known to man?
I find it doubtful. In a week, you will forget that you have the sword to strike the very heart of the system.
Actually, that ad is so clearly false Feingold should sue for libel.
ReplyDelete"notherbob2" wrote:
ReplyDelete"In effect, in the NSA controversy, you are in the position of screaming at the mother that she violated the law. Driving in the summertime was an exceptional circumstance to the law."
There is no exceptional circumstance here. This is a false analogy.
FISA allows the President to request a warrant up to 72 hours *after* spying has started. Prior to Bush, the FISA court had *never* rejected a warrant application -- they will grant a warrant based on the slightest evidence. This is certainly plenty of leeway for *any* spying which might be necessary for national security.
notherbob2 wrote:
"So they just wrote the law and left it to the judge to handle the rest."
But Bush was hell-bent on doing his spying without ever revealing it to the FISA judges. Now do you begin to see the problem?
If the judges said it was OK, that's one thing. But Bush won't let his program go before a judge. If he were anyone but the President, he could be arrested and forced to go before a judge. But as the President, he's the boss of the FBI, who are the only organization empowered to arrest him.
This is why special prosecutors were invented. Of course, Bush won't allow a special prosecutor to be appointed either.
Think maybe, just maybe, Bush actually did something wrong and is trying to get away with it? Cause that's where all the evidence points.
"Bart" wrote:
"1) Unless you are calling an al Qaeda number or they are calling you, the NSA program is not spying on you."
You don't know that. And that's the problem. You have absolutely no way of knowing whether that is true or not. The normal way you know is that a judge had to review the spying request, and we are supposed to be able to trust judges. But Bush was hell-bent on avoiding judicial review. I wonder why?
Who decides who's considered a member of al-Qaeda? The Bush administration. Who decides whether to spy on you or not? The Bush administration. Who has a record of lying so long multiple books have been written about it? George W. Bush. Who refused to allow his cabinet members to testify under oath to the Senate Intelligence Committee? George W. Bush.
I'd trust a judge. You, apparently, would trust George W. Bush with the juidicial power.
"Bart" wrote:
"2) The courts have held repeatedly that the 4th Amendment does not require warrants to conduct intelligence gathering against foreign groups and their agents in the US."
However, it *does* require a warrant in order for the government to treat a U.S. Citizen within the US as a "foreign agent" under those rulings. Which is a warrant George W. Bush has refused to ask for. He's claiming the right to designate anyone -- yes, even you -- as a "foreign agent" without any judicial review. That's un-Constitutional and un-American.
Similarly, he claims the right to designate anyone -- yes, even you -- as an "unlawful combatant", who he claims can be locked up indefinitely without seeing a judge. Note again that the President *in his sole discretion* is determining who is an "unlawful combatant". He *still* claims that he has the right to make this decision independent of any court. Surely this is a matter for a judge? (And indeed, that is what the Supreme Court ruled.)
His breaking the FISA law is cut from the same cloth: Bush is claiming powers reserved to the judiciary.
Incidentally, why do you think he wouldn't let his cabinet officers testify under oath to Congress? Perhaps he knew they were planning to lie, and they were afraid for their eternal souls if they testified under oath?
For those who claim the so-called "Global War on Terror" is an "exceptional case" which allows the President to ignore the law:
ReplyDeleteThis so-called "Global War on Terror" has no end. Even President Bush has not come up with any plausible end for it: I mean, seriously, nobody could ever wipe out every single terrorist in the world at once: new terrorist groups could start at any time.
A case can't be exceptional if it is going to be continually true for the remainder of our lifetimes. Look up "exception" in the dictionary: something can't be exceptional if it's the rule.
Bush has been claiming the right to break any laws at all (no, I am not kidding; look up their legal 'justifications') for as long as terrorism is a threat (again, I am not kidding; look up their public speeches). This isn't an "exception". It's a change in the rules.
The defence of Dubya's law-breaking is sometimes couched in the language: "What's the big deal? Listen away, I've got nothing to hide."
ReplyDeleteThis ignores the fact that the Fourth Amendment is a protection for all Americans. It isn't some clever "liberal ploy" to coddle criminals, protect them, and/or get them off the hook. It's a protection of "the people" in their right to be secure in their lives from unreasonable gummint searches, and in no way is it dependent on there being some specific "crime" (or anything else) to hide (just as the First Amendment protects all speech, whether good, bad, or indifferent, and allows all religions freedom from gummint restriction regardless of the nature (or the worthiness, as judged by someone else) of those beliefs. That's the way we set things up: The rights aren't dependent on a "good" justification for their existence, nor do they depend on the indulgence and tolerance, much less approval, of those in power, however "pure" and "well-intentioned" the folks in power may be. As Brandeis quipped, the greatest threats to our civil liberties will come from those with the "best" motives for taking them away. But that harldy makes the incursion any less ... they are RIGHTS, and not just indulgences granted by the powers that be, except as they see fit or expedient!!!
Keep that in mind, folks. The Republicans and their apologists can waive their own rights at any time -- as is again their own right. But they can never waive mine nor yours.
Cheers,
I was going to respond to the scenario notherbob2 put up at 11:29PM, but decided to get a good night's sleep instead. I see anonymous already covered the salient points anyway (elegant take-down, btw), but there are a few thoughts I'd like to add:
ReplyDelete1. I have not disputed that Presidents can/will/do infringe or step beyond the law; indeed, I grant that exceptional circumstances may dictate they do so for the sake of the country.
2. When Presidents do move outside of the law as written, there is the expectation they will come clean at the earliest opportunity and explain themselves.
3. Neither President Bush nor any of his Administration have made the case that such exceptional circumstances presently exist; their justification for ignoring FISA shifts between (a) the President is not bound by the law, and (b) the law's provisions as currently written (and which were left unamended at the Administration's own request) are too onerous to be bothered with.
4. The refrain that notherbob2 is now holding (to paraphrase: "Its no big deal.") ignores the underlying issue that the President has *publically* admitted the program under discussion was illegal and that he ignored the law. No justification for this law-breaking has been offered beyond the imfamous Nixon claim "Anything the President does is legal."
5. The analogy between the President's actions here and a mother speeding to the hospital is, while novel, neither a convincing or appropriate analogy. The mother was facing an immediate, finite, and treatable medical emergency; what we face as a country is a vaguely-defined threat by a violent ideology held by a network of individuals, one which the current Administration increasingly appears to have no idea how to deal with.
6. The controversy is NOT the equivalent of "shouting at a mother speeding to the hospital to save their child's life", but rather its like politely scolding a serial shoplifter after they've been caught pocketing an apple (despite having a wallet full of cash).
7. The controversy, by rights, shouldn't even exist had the President simply fully informed the relevant Congressional Committees, gotten FISA amended, and made the case to the American public. I'd also point out the only "yelling" I'm hearing in all this is from the Administration's apologists who are anxious to change either the subject or the focus.
8. Despite what Bart and others claim, all the Democrats I've heard speaking on this program after being 'briefed' on it (I'm thinking specifically Senator Rockefeller) have stated they weren't given sufficient details or information on either its scope to make an informed judgment on it or its legality.
9. Speaking of which, I will repeat THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF ADMITTED THE PROGRAM FELL UNDER FISA, BUT THAT HE DIDN'T SEEK ANY WARRANTS AS THE LAW DICTATED! Whether this surveillance actually accomplished something (one certainly hopes it did) or not does NOT EXCUSE OR MITIGATE THE BASE FACT THE PRESIDENT KNOWINGLY AND DELIBERATELY BROKE THE LAW! Amending FISA now or post-facto legislation authorizing this program doesn't change this fact!
10. Finally, the only 'Impeachment' talk I hear is within some sectors of the blogsphere and amongst the punditry. I doubt the President's activities rise to the level of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", and there's zero chance of the House passing any manner of Articles of Impeachment with its current make-up. This doesn't mitigate the fact the President has admitted he and his staff engaged in law-breaking activity.
The inaction of the Congress on this issue doesn't change the underlying issue either. Certainly one can be disappointed by this, but they can answer to their own consciences (if they have one anymore) for it.
Does any political party have the stones to go against the Zionist Chosenites, and bring the wrath of being called an "anti-semite"; the strongest curse word known to man?
ReplyDeleteIt takes no "stones" to spout Jew-hatred on leftist websites like Unclaimed Territory or Crooks and Liars. The left provides a warm blanket of security for its anti-Semitic contingent, which is a growing and vital part of its constituency.
It was William F. Buckley, in the distant 1950s, who almost singlehandedly purged the right of its resident anti-Semites, men such as Gerald L.K. Smith and John Birch.
Someday, perhaps, the left will do the same. Up to that point, however, the toleration of anti-Semitism within its ranks is the perhaps the single most damning characteristic of the left, and until it removes the oriontis and cynic librarians from its midst it will remain a tainted and impotent force in American politics.
anon @ 11:37am: and until it removes the oriontis and cynic librarians from its midst it will remain a tainted and impotent force in American politics.
ReplyDeleteThreats against free speech? Purges? Yes, let's import the muzzling of free speech so charcateristic of the Taliban. But what am I saying? It's already been done in NYC, where a play about Rachel Carrie has been banned by the Zionist jihadists.
On the other hand, I find it important that you confirm a point that you seem to disagree with: the political clout of the pro-Israel lobby in the US Media and Congress. No doubt, they will do all they can to make sure that a free discussion of the issues never does take place.
For an intelligent discussion of the pro-Israel Lobby, see The War in Context.
ReplyDeleteYou might also wish to review the articles at that site relating to Israeli racism against Arabs. According to a quote cited at War in Context, some Israelis are concerned about the apartheid-style mentality current in that country:
Some Jewish South Africans and Israelis who lived with apartheid - including politicians, Holocaust survivors and men once condemned as terrorists - describe aspects of modern Israel as disturbingly reminiscent of the old South Africa.
Bart's claim that the Congress can't interfere with a President's CinC powers is undermined by the Posse Comitatus Act. If I remember correctly, Bush cited this law as his reason for not using the military to help people in New Orleans during Katrina.
ReplyDeleteanonymous:
ReplyDeleteIt was William F. Buckley, in the distant 1950s, who almost singlehandedly purged the right of its resident anti-Semites, men such as Gerald L.K. Smith and John Birch.
Tell him to get out the ol' broom agin; the cockroaches are covering the floor.
FWIW, the JBS is still alive, and the RW is still the home of the Black Helicopter/TLC/OWG/ZWO brigades (and just take a peek at what the RW wingnuts are saying about Soros). And David Duke is still on the Republican side of the aisle.
Bur your choice of words is interesting: "purged". What'd he do, yank their NR subscriptions? Or do you folks on the right have more "efficient" means of mainaining "order" nowadays?
Yes, the left does have to put up with some factions that are anti-Semitic (as well as anarchist/provocateurs and other eedjits). But most of the animus you'll find on the left toward Israel is based on their policies and human rights record, not on the base religious beliefs (evidence here is that many of the stronger and more credible critics of Israeli policy are themselves Jewish). OTOH, didn't we just have Falwell affirming the Jews were all going to Hell (even as he supports and even encourages Israeli policies for his own twisted reasons)?
Cheers,
FWIW, the JBS is still alive, and the RW is still the home of the Black Helicopter/TLC/OWG/ZWO brigades (and just take a peek at what the RW wingnuts are saying about Soros). And David Duke is still on the Republican side of the aisle.
ReplyDeleteNone of those elements are given even the smallest iota of support in the mainstream organizations, publications, or councils of the conservative movement. In fact, they are shunned and criticized by the conservative movement’s political, academic and literary leadership.
The left, however, warmly embraces its most virulent anti-Semitic elements, represented here by posters such as cynic librarian. Israel-bashing is de rigueur among leftist policy leaders, who routinely hold Israel to a different standard than its Arab neighbors, and regularly excuse and justify the violence perpetrated against Jews by its Islamic fascist enemies.
Lastly, the conservative movement can date the beginning of its ascendancy in American politics to Buckley’s refusal to tolerate right-wing anti-Semitism within its ranks. The left would be wise to emulate his example if it truly wishes to escape the marginal fringe it now occupies in our political culture.
anonymous: Your rather tortured logic escapes me. I'll forget your begging the question fallacy concerning anti-semitism for the moment and simply ask perhaps a simple question: you seem to assume that being pro-Israel is somehow mainstream. I ask you to justify that view. Why is it seemingly an a priori view that supporting Israel is a middle-of-the road position to maintain? Do you really think that most Americans even have an idea that foreign policy is so slanted to Israel's interests?
ReplyDeletePerhaps you believe that you can count on the common Judeo-Xtian heritage makes it a "no-brainer" that Israel is America's friend. I suggest that it is the continual media barrage day after day, decade after decade , as well as the Congress' bowing to pressure by the Pro-Israel lobby that makes this an apparent "no-brainer."
I also suggest that recent events in the Mideast are spurring those in the middle to question this received perception. Many people are indeed beginning to ask why Israel deserves special treatment than other nations in the area.
i found "the war in context" well-written and very informative.
ReplyDeleteit is heartening to learn, for example, that some israeli's themselves see the difficulties presented to its growth as a nation in israel's continuation of a dependent relationship with the united states.
it speaks well for israelis thinking seriously about their country's future that they are concerned that the israeli-u.s. relationship may be an impediment to israel's urgent need to resolve the israeli-palestinian conflict and find a place for themselves with their neighbors (and, i would point out, their biological, cultural, and linguistic brothers - the arabs).
cynic librarian cites above a quote that reflects how deeply some israeli's feel about what their country could, and should be.
the issue of the treatment of palestinians has always troubled me for a particular reason other than just its manifest unfairness.
it sems to me that israel, a nation with a strong collective memory of the personal, familial, and political devastation of the holocaust has a special moral imperative to insure that it does not systematically mistreat any one class of its citizens.
there are many ways to look at the holocaust in europe but one way is to view it as a nation (germany, poland, france, etc.) turning on one group or class of its citizens and destroying them.
not only was this treatment inhumane, but from the statndpoint of the future wellbeing and progress of that nation, it was an raordinary folly to divest itself of a large portion of its human capital.
some israeli's apparently are thinking about matters like this. their work must be difficult. their courage has to be admired.
for myself, i can say that i have learned a great deal in a short three days. that, i think, is the power of the world wide web. i am particularly appreciative to those who risk scorn and plagues of headless locusts to provie people like me with the resources to get a better handle on a serious problem for all of us.
arne; Perhaps those Xtians like Falwell think that their view is okay, given the types of chracterization made by some Jews. I mean for all the time, money, and bandwidth that these Xtians give to support Israel and all they get is a kick in the teeth!
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, other Israeli Jews recognize the value of this Xtian support and acknowledge it. Bibi Netanyahu has called these Xtains the "greatest friends" of Israel. You better hope that the Xtian fundafascists don't take your type of statements seriously--otherwise, they might withdraw that support.
BTW I am not so sure that Falwell has gone so far as to say that all Jews will go to hell. Given his Xtian views about the Jews being the Chosen People, I think he's willing to leave such decisions to God. Unlike the Moslems, though, who are already assured a place in Hell.
Anonymous -
ReplyDeleteIf that were true, how do you explain the agendas of those same groups receiving such visible and vocal support by the Gingrinch revolutionaries of 1994? Or the fact that so many of the Right's 'Leaders' (Falwell, Bauer, Robertson, DeLay, Dole, etc.) continuing to advocate policies that coincide with those same groups?
Let me hasten to add that I don't think the John Birchers or the rest are dancing the Republicans on strings; rather I suspect its the other way around. The Republicans, like any competent political party, are drawing a lot of their grassroots support from these elements by embracing their rhetoric but managing thus far to avoid actual policy input or having to enact the agenda of those fringe groups.
This however has the unfortunate effect of poisoning public discussion every bit as much as if they actually did seek to enact Duke's or the JBS's agendas; moral or ideological absolutism in a pluaralistic society only results in a lot of shouting.
Witness the various discussion threads of the last several days, or your own responses to what are otherwise completely legitimate points.
Or the fact that so many of the Right's 'Leaders' (Falwell, Bauer, Robertson, DeLay, Dole, etc.) continuing to advocate policies that coincide with those same groups?
ReplyDeleteThe key point is that each person you mention above is an unabashed supporter of the State of Israel, which puts them 180 degrees out of phase with the racist and anti-Semitic fringe groups you mentioned in your previous comment.
On the other hand, the mainstream left is completely in sync with the most vicious anti-Semites in its ranks concerning its views about Israel, i.e., Israel is always wrong, Israel practices "apartheid," Israel murders innccent "Palestinians," Israel is illegitimate, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseaum.
The Republicans, like any competent political party, are drawing a lot of their grassroots support from these elements by embracing their rhetoric...
The Birchers and other such groups are so insignificant that no Republican leader pays any attention to them. The same is not true of the anti-Israel contingent on the left, as can be witnessed at any anti-war rally in the recent past. How many caricatures of the hook-nosed, bloodthirsty, money-grubbing Jew - caricatures that are ubuitous at these rallies - will convince you that the left gives aid and comfort to the Jew haters in its midst?