By Anonymous Liberal
______________________________
As I've said said before, I think Senator Feingold's censure resolution is an entirely reasonable and justified response to the flouting of a criminal statute by a sitting president. I also think that if Democratic politicians could muster the courage to stand together on this, the resolution could be good politics as well. That said, I've come to the same conclusion as Marty Lederman: "The only way for Congress to prevail in this important was powers standoff is if the Supreme Court declares the President's conduct unlawful."
In theory, Congress could re-assert its powers by making life very difficult for the president. It could threaten impeachment. It could hold the executive branch hostage by withholding funding for key initiatives. But there's simply no way that Congress is going to take these measures, even if by some miracle the Democrats manage to take back both chambers of Congress in November. Such extreme measures are simply too politically risky. The potential for blowback is too large, particularly when it comes to national security related issues.
Realistically, only a major judicial ruling--a modern day Youngstown--can restore the proper constitutional balance. For that reason, opponents of Bush's warrantless surveillance (and his Article II theories generally) must pursue a political and legal strategy designed to maximize the odds of the Court weighing in on this issue.
There are already several legal challenges underway. The lawsuit filed by the ACLU (on behalf of such plaintiffs as Christopher Hitchens and Larry Diamond) has some potential, but the plaintiffs must first establish that they have standing to sue, which will not be easy. Another legal challenge has been filed by lawyers for the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation claiming that the director of the organization was a target of the NSA's warrantless surveillance. This challenge has a better claim to legal standing, at least in theory, but its success will largely depend on the factual details of whatever surveillance actually took place.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the concept of legal standing, the "case or controversy" clause of Article III of the Constitution has been interpreted to bar federal courts from issuing "advisory opinions." The courts will only hear genuine disputes between litigants with a personal stake in the outcome. This has come to be known as Article III standing. In order to proceed to the merits of a case, a plaintiff must first establish, as a threshold matter, that he has 1) suffered an "injury in fact," 2) that this injury is fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct, and 3) that a favorable decision by the court would redress this injury (for a primer on standing doctrine, see this). Standing doctrine is notoriously convoluted, and as a practical matter, judges tend to find standing exists when they want to address the merits of a case and find it lacking when they don't. Nevertheless, standing poses a major obstacle for any would-be challengers of the NSA program.
There are, however, a few proposals on the table that are potentially helpful in this regard. The first is a piece of proposed legislation by Chuck Schumer that would attempt to provide statutory standing for litigants (like Hitchens, Diamond, etc.) who claim that the NSA program has had a chilling effect on the exercise of their professional and constitutional rights. For a discussion of this bill, see this excellent post by Marty Lederman. The goal of Schumer's bill is to facilitate adjudication of the merits of suits like the one filed by the ACLU. While such a law would not guarantee that a court would find standing to exist, it would make such a ruling much more likely.
The problem, as Marty concedes, is that Schumer's bill stands virtually zero chance of becoming law. Even if Schumer could get enough Republicans to join him--which is unlikely to begin with--the bill would likely be vetoed. As a political matter, though, the bill would at least call the administration's bluff and make it crystal clear that they have no confidence whatsoever in the strength of their legal arguments. But then again, that's pretty clear already.
The other interesting avenue of legal challenge is the one proposed by Sean Patrick Maloney, a candidate for Attorney General in New York. Maloney, with the assistance of some other good lawyers, has actually drafted a complaint that could be used by any number of state Attorneys General to challenge the legality of the NSA program. The complaint alleges--among other things--that the NSA program violates a New York state law that forbids eavesdropping except as authorized by relevant state and federal laws. Many other states have similar laws. Determining whether the NSA program violates these laws would require a judge to determine whether or not the President acted within his constitutional power in authorizing the program. This sort of lawsuit may be less vulnerable to standing challenges than one filed by a private party.
Looming over all these legal challenges, however, is the possibility that new legislation will render the issues moot. If either the DeWine or the Specter bill passes, it will bring the NSA program within the letter of the law. At that point, the ACLU's standing argument--even if buttressed by the Schumer bill--would be seriously undermined. There would no longer be any illegal program causing a "chilling effect" on communications. And the declaratory and injunctive relief sought in that action would no longer make sense. The same is true of Maloney's Attorney General complaint, at least as it is currently drafted.
The passage of the DeWine or Specter bills would not retroactively legalize the surveillance that has already occurred, but it would make it very difficult to construct a viable legal vehicle for challenging the President's Article II theories.
For this reason, I've come to the conclusion that the best strategy for Democrats to pursue is to vigorously oppose any further amendments to FISA, at least until the courts have had a chance to weigh in on this issue. So long as the President claims the inherent authority to disregard FISA, amending FISA is not only a pointless exercise, but it will actually serve to delay or preclude judicial resolution of this constitutional impasse. The Democrats need to give this issue the time to work its way through the courts.
In the meantime, they should be prepared to filibuster any proposed FISA amendments should it be necessary. If the Republicans try to paint them as being obstructionist or opposed to legislation necessary to fight the war on terror, Democrats can simply point to statements like this one:
JIM LEHRER: Is the president willing to work with Congress to settle some of the legal disputes about the NSA surveillance program?
VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: We believe, Jim, that we have all the legal authority we need.
Similar statements have been made on numerous occasions by Scott McClellan and even the President himself. It will be pretty hard to paint the Democrats as opposing necessary legislation when the administration itself concedes that it is unnecessary. If the administration changes its tune and argues that authorizing legislation is necessary, that in and of itself, will be a significant victory.
What we need to do now, at least in my humble opinion, is buy time. We need to give these legal challenges a chance to proceed without being mooted by new legislation. Schumer's bill should be supported vigorously, even if its prospects for passage are slim. Attorneys General in solidly blue states should be encouraged to consider filing legal challenges similar to the one proposed by Sean Maloney. The more challenges that are filed, the better the chance that at least one of them will reach the merits. And when the administration is finally forced to make its frivolous legal arguments in front of federal judge, it's not going to be pretty.
Welcome back, Glenn. Hope the writing is going well.
ReplyDeleteLet me ask this: what do you think the odds are the Democrats can actually mount and execute such a strategy (especially in light of recent history)?
You 'flout' the law, not 'flaunt.'
ReplyDeleteFirst sentence.
Glenn, this feels truly defeatist to me. Buy time? Isn't that the administration's strategy, to run out the clock and, when a case looks like it might be adjudicated, move the pieces around the board to moot or delay the proceedings some more?
ReplyDeleteFirst, this post is actually by me, so if it sounds defeatist, don't blame Glenn. Hopefully the byline will be corrected shortly.
Second, I don't think it's defeatist. I think we have to deal realistically with the fact that the GOP controls Congress and, with the exception of Specter, Republicans have demonstrated any real desire to do anything to address this consitutional crisis.
Realistically, the courts are the logical place to turn, and this is what has happened historically in situations like this. Because this program is secret, however, getting a proper case before the court is difficult. That's why I think Democrats need to think long and hard about what strategy is most likely to get this issue before the court.
From Carrie at 10:39AM:
ReplyDelete"We can buy time, try and force things up the court, but it will reach the Supremes and they will declare, openly and without irony, that the President does not have to obey the law."
Let's keep a bit of perspective:
Yes, Alito may well rule in favor of the Executive on this or other issues. Based on his history, this seems likely, but I think much will depend upon how the case comes before the Court and its exact circumstances.
Also, keep in mind there are eight other Justices there, each with their own outlooks and histories.
Until a case is actually brought before the Court, it seems a bit premature to suggest all is lost.
We can buy time, try and force things up the court, but it will reach the Supremes and they will declare, openly and without irony, that the President does not have to obey the law.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that's true at all. I don't think the administration's current legal arguments would be accepted by more than one or two justices, perhaps none. That's why the administration is so desparate to avoid judicial review. If they thought the Supreme Court would support their view, they would welcome litigation.
Glenn wrote:
ReplyDelete"In theory, Congress could re-assert its powers by making life very difficult for the president. It could threaten impeachment. It could hold the executive branch hostage by withholding funding for key initiatives. But there's simply no way that Congress is going to take these measures, even if by some miracle the Democrats manage to take back both chambers of Congress in November. Such extreme measures are simply too politically risky. The potential for blowback is too large, particularly when it comes to national security related issues."
Personally I think the problem is too many people still wanting to dance around the issue with a President who has poll numbers in the thirties. Threaten impeachment? The Congress should impeach Bush and remove him from office. It is the only solution in a case where the President has repeatedly and continually broken the law and openly flouted the Constitution. He has locked up people including a U.S. citizen for three years without any charges or access to legal counsel. He has authorized the torture and indefinite detention of prisoners. Torture which in at least one provable case that has resulted in death. He has repeatedly authorized warrantless spying on American citizens. He has violated the separation of Church and State by providing federal funding (our taxpayer dollars) to religious organizations. If ever there has been a case for impeachment and removal of a president this is it.
The only question is, do we have any politicians willing to stand up and demand that Congress do it's job? We all know the Republicans were more than willing to stand up for impeachment because a president lied about a consensual sexual act. Where are the Democrats on an issue that is immensely more important than that with an already unpopular President?
I leave you with this recent item in the news indicating that the lawbreaking not only continues under this president but is expanding:
"Patriot Act Catches a Baby-Food Thief
Tue Apr 04 2006 10:03:08 ET
The case of Samih Jammal, convicted with the help of the Patriot Act and FISA wiretaps of fencing stolen baby formula, sits on the fine line between the government's terrorism-fighting role and its duty to protect citizen's rights.
The WALL STREET JOURNAL reports the use of FISA warrants helped prosecuted Arizona grocery wholesaler Jammal, who was convicted of operating a baby formula theft ring.
The JOURNAL notes that Jammal, a "U.S. citizen born in Lebanon, was never charged with any offense related to terrorism."
Jammal "is appealing, contending that FISA evidence used against him was illegally obtained and crippled his defense. ... 'It's baby formula of mass destruction here,' he said at one pretrial hearing.""
Buying time is an extremely sound strategy. Events are unfolding everyday that weaken BushCo's arguments about all things having to do with the "war on terror". Cases currently before the court indicate that a majority of the Supremes take a dim view of Bush's assertions as to the unitary executive theory. You may well have Scalia, Scalito, and Thomas on board, but they do not a majority make. See Hamdam and even the Pidillo ruling this week. And the Gitmo cases are working there way up the pipeline. The legal environment does not operate in a vacuum reserved for the Federalist society. I believe there is broad and growing disgust with the imcompetence, corruption, sadism, and militarism that is the hallmark of lopsided Republican governance. Courts across the country will reflect that backlash.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, perhaps I'm naive.
Glenn--
ReplyDeleteI think there might be a big roadblock to the state AG suit, and that is intergovernmental immunity. The federal government is immune from state suits in general, right? (N Dak v US, I think. It's a booze case involving a military base but there's some discussion of the doctrine in there).
If I understand things correctly, there's one very attractive feature to the complaint proposed by Sean Patrick Maloney: Since the plaintiff would be a State, the case would have original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court.
ReplyDelete(I'm no lawyer, so somebody correct me if I'm wrong)
If that's right, then at least that would expedite things greatly relative to the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation case.
Sorry to say this but reading between the lines, it looks like we now have an official dictatorship on our hands and the constitution and our democracy are dead. RIP USA.
ReplyDeleteOne of the more interesting developments in "standing" was the unusual deference that Rehnquist and company gave to Dubya in the Dubya v. Gore case.
ReplyDeletePreviously, Rehnquist and other conservatives had insisted that plaintiffs making "equal protection" cliams had to show "actual injury", and that just statistical data wasn't enough to establish injury. Of course, that was for blacks claiming that people discriminated against them. Such folks needed to show "discriminatory intent" (and not just a disparate outcome) to have a claim. But not so for Dubya; when it's your buddy, just "c'mon in!" In fact, Dubya didn't even need to show statistical data or an actual result that was allegedly discriminatory, seeing as the events that he was alleging were in the future and entirely hypothetical! So it's become just a little easier to establish standing nowadays for "equal protection" claims: Just cite Dubya v. Gore! That would be a delicious turnaround on that execrable opinion ... and would serve the Doofus-in-Chief and his shyster lawyers right.
I should also mention that Dubya v. Gore also seems to have ignored the requirement that the actual person injured be the party pursuing the suit. The claim (such as it was) was that counting allegedly "illegal" votes might dilute the votes of people whose votes had couted (it would be hard to maintain that counting legal votes would do such a thing). But the persons "injured" by any such alleged "vote dilution" would be the voters in Florida ... not Dubya. Last I checked, he was supposedly a Texas resident at the time (at least he pretended to be guv'nuh there).
So yes, there's prudential (and constitutional, at least if you believe in caselaw) rules on standing. But they're not insurmountable obstacles ... IF you have a sympathetic court. So the Democrats let Dubya get by with Roberts and Scalito..... We're f***ed.
Cheers,
Gris: The only question is, do we have any politicians willing to stand up and demand that Congress do it's job? We all know the Republicans were more than willing to stand up for impeachment because a president lied about a consensual sexual act. Where are the Democrats on an issue that is immensely more important than that with an already unpopular President?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Tom DeLay's charge on Wolf Blistzer yesterday that the Dems wanted 1) to increase taxes, 2) retreat from Iraq, and 3) impeach the President, Dem Leader Howard Dean said the Dems wanted to do none of those things. So much for a Dem spine.
*)*
ReplyDeleteAnonymous Liberal:
Is any bill (such as Dewine)that allows for warrantless search of this type constitutional? Since the Constitution bars unreasonable search and seizure, Congress can no more pass a law that allows for unreasonable search and seizure than the President can do it in the absence of a law.
Absent a case working its way to the Supreme Court, I think the endgame will be Dems getting back inpower which will embolden people to come forward with what they know about how this surveillance has really been used. I'm betting $$$ to donuts, that the Adminstration has already used this in some ways that would shock the conscience of the American people. Not sure Bush set out to do it, not sure he even knows about it, but those beneath him will and likely have misused this power already.
The endgame is a revelation that will make the threat of this power in the hands of the Executive obvious to the American people. But, we need to take back Congress in order to get the info out.
Look, folks, when the Supreme Court oks the NSA program it won't be because of Roberts and Alito. It will be because, institutionally, the Court will look at the case and say, "look, if Congress doesn't care about this -- and after all, FISA is Congress's law the President is crapping on -- then why should we care?"
ReplyDeleteCongress needs to clean up its own mess. And it isn't even a matter of Congress being controlled by the GOP. Even the dems aren't coming out strongly against the program, with the exception of Feingold. So if it's ok with the President, and ok with Congress, why would the Supreme Court ever stick its neck out? The Court isn't going to fight Congress's battle when Congress won't acknowledge that there's a problem. I think the lesson is that every dem should be screaming at the top of their lungs that the NSA program is clearly illegal and must be stopped. Absent that, the Court won't even think about a ruling against the Administration.
the cynic librarian said...
ReplyDeleteIn response to Tom DeLay's charge on Wolf Blistzer yesterday that the Dems wanted 1) to increase taxes, 2) retreat from Iraq, and 3) impeach the President, Dem Leader Howard Dean said the Dems wanted to do none of those things. So much for a Dem spine.
With the exception of Russ Feingold I couldn't agree with you more unfortunately. I think I have a solution though which I will post in a few minutes.
arne langsetmo wrote:
ReplyDelete"Just cite Dubya v. Gore! That would be a delicious turnaround on that execrable opinion ... and would serve the Doofus-in-Chief and his shyster lawyers right."
While you're right that Bush v. Gore was the most breathtakingly broad reading of the equal protection clause ever, you're going to run into trouble citing it as precedent since they very explicitly said "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances." (The claim, silly as it may be, being that a presidential election is so completely unique it can never have precedetial weight. Of course they did that because they themselves knew just how incredibly bad the ruling was)
Is any bill (such as Dewine)that allows for warrantless search of this type constitutional? Since the Constitution bars unreasonable search and seizure, Congress can no more pass a law that allows for unreasonable search and seizure than the President can do it in the absence of a law.
ReplyDeleteThere are certainly Fourth Amendment and other constitutional challenges that can be mounted against the DeWine bill, if it passes, but it's not at all certain they would succeed. Lower courts have found warrantless surveillance to be constitution when done in accordance with the law. That's the question left open by the Supreme Court in the Keith case.
On the Fourth Amendment question, the administration's legal arguments much stronger. I can see the Court finding the DeWine bill constitutional.
Gris Lobo said...
ReplyDeleteG'day, I have come up with the following solution to the Dems being unwilling to stand up against a President that insists on violating the law and flouting the Constitution even in the face of poll numbers in the thirties:
In the spirit of lawlessness that has broken out in the land I think we should all contribute our fair share. After all everyone else seems to be breaking the law now. Well, actually that should be clarified somewhat because we have always had lawbreakers, the difference is now that a lot of people are doing it with impunity, or should that be immunity.
The president breaks the law and most everyone seems to overlook it, present company excepted. We have millions of people that break into the country every year. The penalty; nothing. In fact they are rewarded with free medical care, free education, and numerous other benefits; some even that our own citizens aren't entitled too.
Now in a country such as ours where everyone is supposed to be equal under the law that just doesn't somehow seem fair. So I got to thinking about how we could even things up and make them fair again. And then it hit me like a lightning bolt. We should all write our congressional representatives and ask that each one of us be exempted from some law that we don't like or don't agree with.
I thought about my own personal choice for quite some time. My first choice was to ne able to loot the treasury. After all, that is where the money is. But no, I think our congressional representatives and outfits like Haliburton already beat me and everyone else to that one. Then I thought about how much fun it would be to drive as fast as I want anytime and anywhere I want to, but no, the Governors of Texas and New Mexico beat me to that one too.
Anyway to make a long story not too long, I finally decided I want to be able to rob banks legally. It does have a couple of drawbacks, it isn't as lucrative as looting the treasury, and you do have to stick a gun in somebody's face and say "stick em up". But as crimes go it will certainly pay the bills, so anyway that is my choice.
Having finally settled on bank robbery I have fired off a letter to my representative and have asked him to write it into law as soon as possible so that I can get started right away.
I would suggest that you all make your choices soon and do the same before all the good ones are gone.
@JaO:
ReplyDeleteWhen you say:
"But most importantly, the legislation should draw a line that says, "This far and no further, without explicit approval from the courts," and provide a mechanism that compels such judicial review."
it's not that I disagree with the principle you're supporting, it's that it's an unenforceable one in the current circumstances.
This is the case because it's the BUSH ADMINISTRATION that is the problem. When it has already stated that it won't abide by an existing law (FISA) that says 'this far and no further, without explicit approval from the courts', what reason would one expect it to abide by the strictures of some new law?
For this reason, I think the Constitutional crisis can be solved only by something like impeachment or censure. Which is why I'm not optimistic that the crisis can be solved with the representatives we currently have in Washington.
Another reason is that there is strong support for amending FISA -- one way or another -- to provide more flexible surveillance if necessary, and that policy shift is not without merit.
ReplyDeletejao,
I'm not opposed, in theory, to amending FISA to make it work better, if such an amendment is necessary. But I just don't see what that accomplishes when the President maintains that he is not bound by FISA. Until the Article II question is resolved or clarified, having a policy debate about FISA makes no sense.
Moreover, amending FISA to legalize the NSA program would present major mootness barriers to review of the Article II question, so it would be counter-productive.
You write:
Perhaps most importantly, the goal of reasserting the institutional powers of Congress -- which can be bipartisan -- is not the same goal as proving culpability on the part of President Bush.
I fully agree. The goal of the strategy I outlined above is not to penalize Bush (though he deserves it), but to maximize the chances that the judiciary will be able to step in and restore constitutional order. I don't think Congress is willing or able at this point to reassert its institutional powers. We've got to hope that the courts can resolve this impasse.
It will be pretty hard to paint the Democrats as opposing necessary legislation when the administration itself concedes that it is unnecessary
ReplyDeleteI wish I could be confident about that, but I’m not. I can just hear the propaganda machine’s talking points now, “We are trying to update FISA to accommodate changes in technology and the obstructionist Democrats don’t want to update it, because they don’t want to know when Osama is calling – they don’t want to monitor Al Qaeda and all they are interested in is tearing down our President who is only trying to protect us from terrorists.”
It will be easy for them to ignore Cheney’s statements and pretend that they didn’t happen – look at all his statements about Atta etc. regarding Iraq that just aren’t important anymore. Nothing to see there, either.
I’m not confident at all that Democrats will take A. L.’s advice. So I think we are dealing with either the passage of “some” legislation that will make the President’s actions legal.
And, even if the Democrats take the House and start a real investigation, the White House will simply not comply with demands for documents citing “executive privilege” a la Nixon, so once again we’ll end up in some sort of stand off between two branches of government.
I don’t mean to be pessimistic, just kind of thinking out loud here.
Just to underscore - Due almost certainly to the incomparable torture tools which book editors viciously wield in the last week before the real printing deadline, I neglected to include A.L's byline on this post until the omission was brought to my attention, for which I apologize.
ReplyDeleteBefore realizing that I hadn't authored the post, some of you observed that several of the sentiments seemed to diverge from prior positions I've stated. I agree that some do. I don't actually share all of the views advocated here by A.L. or the posts of Marty Lederman's to which he links, but writing about those issues is going to have to wait until I'm emancipated from my publishing prison. That should be just a few more days, and a steady stream of blog posts from me can thereafter freely flow. Can't wait.
After reading this post, I stopped and thought for a minute and then laughed out loud. AL is saying: “Damn! This whole problem is going to be solved. The President will no longer be breaking the law by any measure, FISA will be improved (and thus more effective in doing what it was designed to do) the “chilling effect and the whole issue will go away. “ [not an actual quote] Or, in other words, stripped of its verbiage: “Despite our best efforts to pervert it for political purposes, the damned system did its job and solved the problem.” [not an actual quote]
ReplyDeleteYes, ‘tis a sad day for the Republic. (chuckle)
Or, in other words, stripped of its verbiage: “Despite our best efforts to pervert it for political purposes, the damned system did its job and solved the problem.”
ReplyDeleteNot surprisingly, notherbob, you seem to have missed the point entirely.
These new amendments don't solve anything. The problem is the president's radical assertion of authority. Passing new legislation doesn't solve that problem, it merely masks it and prevents judicial review of it. The problem would still be there.
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteVery nice and succinct summary of the legal situation.
A couple comments if I may...
The Schumer bill is not serious law, it is a political stunt. Under no current law of which I am aware may a plaintiff bring a lawsuit merely because he or she thinks they have suffered a harm without any evidence of that harm. Such a law would gut the entire concept of standing.
The other interesting avenue of legal challenge is the one proposed by Sean Patrick Maloney, a candidate for Attorney General in New York. Maloney, with the assistance of some other good lawyers, has actually drafted a complaint that could be used by any number of state Attorneys General to challenge the legality of the NSA program. The complaint alleges--among other things--that the NSA program violates a New York state law that forbids eavesdropping except as authorized by relevant state and federal laws. Many other states have similar laws. Determining whether the NSA program violates these laws would require a judge to determine whether or not the President acted within his constitutional power in authorizing the program. This sort of lawsuit may be less vulnerable to standing challenges than one filed by a private party.
Once again, because they can point to no actual violation of NY state law which harmed anyone, the AGs would still have standing problems.
Also, such a lawsuit, if allowed to proceed, probably will not get to the core issue, which is the legality of FISA when it limits Presidential Article II power. The AGs are alleging a violation of NY state law only, not a violation of FISA.
Therefore, the issue will be whether the universally recognized Article II constitutional power to conduct warrantless intelligence gathering trumps a state law. Therefore, that challenge would have next to no chance of success.
Looming over all these legal challenges, however, is the possibility that new legislation will render the issues moot. If either the DeWine or the Specter bill passes, it will bring the NSA program within the letter of the law.
No, it may bring FISA within the bounds of Article I power.
At that point, the ACLU's standing argument--even if buttressed by the Schumer bill--would be seriously undermined. There would no longer be any illegal program causing a "chilling effect" on communications. And the declaratory and injunctive relief sought in that action would no longer make sense. The same is true of Maloney's Attorney General complaint, at least as it is currently drafted.
I posted this three weeks ago. I'm glad to see that you have caught on to this inevitability. This entire issue will be moot before the elections with an overwhelming vote of both parties in Congress along the lines of the renewal of the Patriot Act.
For this reason, I've come to the conclusion that the best strategy for Democrats to pursue is to vigorously oppose any further amendments to FISA, at least until the courts have had a chance to weigh in on this issue.
The Dems will not do this. They are already going to get beaten over the head with trying to kill the Patriot Act based on an ill advised comment by Harry Reid. They are not going into the elections as the party opposing listening in on al Qaeda calls into the US.
So long as the President claims the inherent authority to disregard FISA, amending FISA is not only a pointless exercise...
This effort, if done right, will amend FISA so that it is constitutional and provide for increased Congressional oversight.
In the meantime, they should be prepared to filibuster any proposed FISA amendments should it be necessary. If the Republicans try to paint them as being obstructionist or opposed to legislation necessary to fight the war on terror, Democrats can simply point to statements like this one:
JIM LEHRER: Is the president willing to work with Congress to settle some of the legal disputes about the NSA surveillance program?
VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: We believe, Jim, that we have all the legal authority we need.
And all the GOP has to do is point to the numerous statements by the Dems saying that they want to change the law to make the NSA Program "legal."
In the end, though, quoting these statements will not make any difference for either side.
The GOP pitch in compaign commercials will simply say that the Dems oppose listening in on al Qaeda and let the Dems try to explain their filibusters. Go to rnc.org and click on their censure online commercial for a sample of things to come this fall if the Dems in competitive races don't vote for the DeWine Bill.
This is a fight the GOP dearly wants to have this fall.
I really think that a lot of Democrats view this issue through the prism of what is most politically advantageous to their party in regaining the Congress in elections this November. Unfortunately, good politics do not make for a principled legal stance.
ReplyDeleteWhig, I'm not sure why you got this impression from my post. I was not attempting to outline a winning electoral strategy for Democrats. I was trying to outline a strategy for resolving this constitutional impasse. To the extent I even discussed the Democrats political interests, it was merely to point out that pursuing this strategy will not hurt them (if they do it right). My concerns about the illegality of this program and the dangerousness of the president's theories of executive power far transcend my desire to see the Democrats regain Congress.
While I agree with the general cast of AL's strategy, I think that ruling out Congressional action via budgetary review and oversight is wrong-headed.
ReplyDeleteWere the Dems to take over the Congress in either the House and/or the Senate, they could use the threat of not funding NSA or other department programs to 1) make the WH come clean about the expanse of the NSA surveillance program(s) and 2) abide by FISA.
At the least, a Dem-controlled Congress could task the Office of Management and Budget to identify whether the NSA program(s) have actually stopped terrorist plots or led to arrests of terrorists. They could also identify the cost-effectiveness of the program(s) as opposed to more traditional investigative techniques.
jao:
ReplyDeleteBut to stand up for its prerogatives, and set the stage for eventual resolution in the Supreme Court, Congress has to draw the legal line with such a judicial tripwire.
But Specter's bill wouldn't do that. It would move the legal line and moot the article II question. Specter's bill would facilitate a Fourth Amendment review of the administration's activities, but it would not provoke review of the article II question. The FISA court would have no occasion to determine whether the president exceeded his authority because, at that point, he would be acting pursuant to new statutory authority.
In other words, Specter's bill would not set the stage for court review of the more important question.
5 Years.
ReplyDeleteI din't think we would invade Iraq, detain Americans without charges, suppress free speech, .... blah, blah, blah.
Can the people who where elected to serve the public trust get to work already.
Jan Rooth:
ReplyDeleteWhile you're right that Bush v. Gore was the most breathtakingly broad reading of the equal protection clause ever, you're going to run into trouble citing it as precedent since they very explicitly said "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances."
Well, they can say that of course the consideration in the case at bar was "limited to the present circumstances", but that doesn't mean, in the absence of any specific holding to the contrary, that the long-standing respect for precedent and stare decisis shouldn't apply to the rationales used in coming to the decision they did (and keep in mind that it's necessary to establish standing to even begin to consider the merits) if the same question of standing should arise under different circumstances. Or something like that. Keep in mind that everything's fair game after they put out that execrable opinion. Kind of like being able to prove anything you want in a mathematical system after you prove that 2 + 2 = 3 (once you've proved both a statement and its negation in a formal mathematical system, you can construct a proof of any absurd statement you want, whether "true" or "false" objectively).
;-)
Cheers,
...good response, apparently, correcting 'flaunt' to 'flout'.
ReplyDelete...could you do something with
'was powers' in the Lederman quote?
HWSNBN sez:
ReplyDeleteThe Schumer bill is not serious law, it is a political stunt. Under no current law of which I am aware may a plaintiff bring a lawsuit merely because he or she thinks they have suffered a harm without any evidence of that harm. Such a law would gut the entire concept of standing.
The troll HWSNBN ignores one of the most important and influential cases on the 2000 SCOTUS docket: Dubya v. Gore! Imagine that.... But then HWSNBN ain't a lawyer. He's a troll.
We'll ignore for the moment the many other instances where Congress has explicitly given standing to various parties to bring suit to challenge laws and/or acts.
Cheers,
Although not partial to mass demos, I think the April 29th march in Mnhattan one would be worth visiting. NSA spying is among one of their menu of issues.
ReplyDeleteI disagree strongly.
ReplyDeleteThe political risk is determined entirely by public perception. And perception could be changed by an aggressive Congress, or even by aggressive Democrats. They are simply too cowardly to act.
Every single person I have spoken to, where I live in red state Texas, thinks the Constitution matters, and that the feds should get warrants before they tap anybody's phones, search anybody's house, or read anybody's email.
The GOP has successfully framed this so that people believe Feingold wants to STOP tapping terrorists' phones. Every person I have spoken to, when they learn that Bush wants to do away with warrants, supports Feingold's censure idea.
This is no time for the Democratic activist base - us - to go wobbly. the press is already wobbly, the Democrats in Congress are wobbly. Somebody has to have some huevos.
The SCOTUS - the clowns who gave Bush his job in the first place - hoping for them to restore balance is liking hoping for Stalin to end the gulag system.
I've followed this scandal enough to understand the difference between the way Glenn and others here (myself included) view it, vs the way Bart and much of the media and public view it.
ReplyDeleteWe are shocked at the power-grab by Bush. His justifications for being able to ignore FISA indicate his belief that he can ignore any law he chooses, as long as he can bring it under the umbrella of protecting the country, which is broad enough to allow him to pretty much break any law he wants. The media should be shocked enough to tell the American public that Bush has given himself the powers of a king, but that hasn't happened.
I've learned from Bart that he and many others are scared enough to be willing to give up some constitutional rights in order to feel safer. As long as the president is only using the broad powers he's claimed to keep them safe, they're fine with the NSA warrantless spying. They believe Bush is only spying on those he genuinely believes represent a threat, so they're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Bart actually believes the POTUS can legally get away with it, but many people who think he might be doing something technically illegal are still willing to allow him to do so as long as his motives are to keep them safe. The media seems to be largely going along with this view, and have decided to overlook the fact that Bush has given himself enough power to become a dictator if he so chooses. They trust he just won't do that. I am not so trusting.
I am a realist though. Enough to see at this point that until some evidence comes out that Bush is using his broad powers to do things beyond just spying on people with genuine links to Al-Quaida (or similar threats) this scandal is going to go the way of all the other scandals Rove has managed to shove under the rug. With each passing day the scandal seems to fade from the public consciousness. I'm afraid that until something drastic is revealed, there just won't be the critical mass of anger to get the media and public to understand the threat posed by the vast powers Bush has claimed for himself. Shocking, I know, but that's the state of things in America today, where all most people need to know is that there's a really good burger-of-the-month at the local McBurgerQueen, and a new episode of American Idolatry on TV tonight. Which is all they need to muster the energy to slog through another day at a job without health insurance or a pension. Who has time to worry about possible abuse of power somewhere down the line. When the cops kick the door down, they'll wonder what happened. Until then, they're content to trust Bush to keep them safe from those spooky brown men who talk in gibberish.
Bush's poll numbers indicate even the sheep are starting to pay attention, but until we learn what Bush is really doing with the powers he's claimed, only those who know history will be properly concerned.
... [U]ntil we learn what Bush is really doing with the powers he's claimed, only those who know history will be properly concerned.
ReplyDeleteBy then, perhaps, we'll have something like the department of information described by Orwell in 1984. History is made by the victors; the United States of Jesus Christ will, no doubt, continue their revisionist pogrom on history, as their predescessors in today's religious right enclaves who run school boards already indicate.
The political problem is that the policy debate is going to happen whether you like it or not. Under your strategic scenario, Democrats would stage a pre-election filibuster against enacting a bill to enable legal surveillance of terrorists. That won't happen, and would stage the fight on ground defined by Karl Rove.
ReplyDeletejao, I agree with much of your comment, but not this part. First, a filibuster might not be necessary. It's not at all clear that DeWine will be able to secure 50 votes for his bill (at least if Democrats don't help him), and I can't see the administration supporting Specter's bill. So the Republicans would have to resolve that internal conflict first.
But even if it got to the vote stage, it's clear that the administration is, at best, ambivalent about the passage of any legislation, which makes it very hard to hammer the Dems for not supporting it. The Dems should have no problem framing the issue as the administration being afraid of the courts.
If the Republicans claim that the Democrats are preventing necessary surveillance from taking place, the Dems can simply point out that NSA program is ongoing and that the president says he doesn't need any more legislation. What's Rove's response to that? "Yes, but what we're doing now is illegal. We need this law to legalize it." That's not a very compelling talking point.
PS For a gander @ the infrastructure being put into place for the new Dept of Public Information, see this article at Defense Tech.
ReplyDeleteBut don't worry--s'all double-plus good.
I think the perfect law to announce a new theory to is the "one vote". I'm a citizen and have a right to vote and to protect the country, thus, I choose to vote as often as necessary to accomplish this means. It is a constitutional issue such as NSA, it is presenting a unitary argument such as Bush and, it just might counter the Diabold voting machines.
ReplyDeleteDear USA,
I hear by announce my unitary citizen interpretation of voting privilage and declare that I can, in a time of war do everything within my contitutional rights of pursuit of freedom and happyness to protect this country from those who would misrepresent me...
JaO writes: The belief that all "conservative" justices would support Bush on his radical claim of executive power is a misconception shared by wishful wingnuts and paranoid moonbats. Of the four justices you mention, I think only Thomas is likely to support Bush's claim. The whole problem, as Anonymous Liberal correctly states, is getting the question before the Supreme Court in the first place.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. The deranged wingnuts and the moonbats all share this total fantasy. There is a reason the Bush DoJ engaged in all those antics to prevent Padilla's appeal from being heard by the SCOTUS -- and thus earning them a huge smackdown from the 4th Circuit's Michael Luttig (!) for the tranparent shell game they are playing with the courts.
The Bush DoJ can read the jurisprudential postures in cases like Hamdi, and count to nine. They don't want Padilla's case heard by the SCOTUS any more than they want the warrantless wiretap issue subject to judicial review. Moving heaven and Earth, are they, to avoid both (entering into bizarre "deal-making" with the FIS Court rather than appealing any decision putting the legality of the warrantless spying at issue, tactics noted even by a Bush shill like Hewitt).
I know, JaO, you side more with Kerr in believing Bush would lose in the SCOTUS "only" by 8-1, Thomas as the hold-out. But truly, I think Thomas would make it unanimous.
bart (aka Harold Arlan DePalma):
ReplyDelete"The GOP pitch in compaign commercials will simply say that the Dems oppose listening in on al Qaeda ..."
notherbob2:
"Despite [Democrats'] best efforts to pervert it for political purposes ..."
Stop it, just stop it! As AL said, "the problem is the president's radical assertion of authority." We aren't playing Donkey vs. Elephant here. We're playing POTUS vs. The People.
Specter has been effectively isolated within his own party, and the White House views his bill as the only threat.
ReplyDeleteSadly, I think you're right about Specter being isolated. But Specter's bill isn't the only threat. No bill is also a threat. That's why the administration has reluctantly shown some support for DeWine's bill. They realize that new legislation would effectively moot most of the legal challenges of the program and minimize the possibility of a stinging judicial rebuke.
I think the Democrats should call the administration's bluff that they don't need any further statutory authority. They should say, essentially, "well, let's see what the courts have to say about that."
AL, you didn't mean it to sound defeatist, and your analysis is no doubt correct, but Carrie is completely right. Anyone who didn't see that at the time just missed the big picture.
ReplyDeleteThe minute Alito was confirmed, it was all over. Nothing will work now, and that's being demonstrated as all these recent events have shown.
When leading liberal bloggers can support an Obama, then it shows that even so-called smart people are too stupid to think rationally and see things clearly.
And all the lefties who say "but- but- but- but you voted for Bush" are equally as blind. Did it ever occur to them that Joe Lieberman was the Vice-Presidential candidate Gore chose? That was supposed to be inspiring?
Of course the lefties liked Joe then, although he was the exact same person with the exact same mind-set and the exact same political philosophy he has now.
Short of an actual revolt against the incumbant politicians during some future election, and I don't mean putting more of the present type Democrats back in, this is, unfortunately, quickly on its way to becoming "the former United States of America."
Why? Because the people in this country, for the most part, simply are too stupid to see what is going on, do not care, or are the ones doing the looting and thrilled with the way things are going.
When you give a Government enough power to give you everything you want (the Left), you give it enough power to destroy you (the Right).
You know who was right in the end? Ayn Rand. She warned people that socialism and fascism were the same thing, just two different faces of Statism.
The Left hated her, and the Right hated her, but she was 100% right. The Left wanted bigger and bigger government, in their stupid mindless assumption that Big Government would care about individuals, or "the people", as the Left likes to say, as they seem to have an aversion to the word "individual."
But that has never been what Big Government is all about. Any idiot should have been able to see that.
The Left never really cared about the freedom of the individual. They only professed to care about the civil liberties of various special interest groups.
I also am revising my opinion of blogs, which I first thought might offer a slim ray of hope. Blogs who think Tom Delay is the big story, or who drone on endlessly about whatever partisan scandal du jour takes Center Stage, are lemmings going over the cliff.
And so it all comes back to Padme of Star War's great observation:
"So this is how liberty dies, to a thunderous applause."
Marty Lederman is a good guy and a very smart man. But he exemplifies and has for a long time what the problem in present state America has become. You are either a discarded, dismissible visionary who believes in unbridled individual liberty free of immoral government intrusion, or you have to learn to play the game by becoming a "realist".
But for those to whom the "game" has become repugnant, to be that type of "realist" is the same as being a "defeatist."
Some recent interesting articles by various intellectuals have pointed out that there are inherent defects in our American system of government which made it an almost perfect plan for a government for a limited run, but not for an extended engagement.
I think that's what has happened, and a new movie is now being previewed and will open soon. Unfortuntely, it's a horror film.
vermontraccoon said...
ReplyDelete"Gris Lobo;
I'm with you on the exemption from the law thing, but my personal choice would be to ignore my tax bills. It also falls in line with the Republican flag (double standard) rule: It's not illegal if it's done by a Republican. I'm filling out my voter reg. form today, abandoning my Independant status and joining the law breakers of the Republican party. BTW, please don't rob my bank, at least not while I'm there."
Not paying my taxes was the next choice in line for me too. Glad you were still able to get one of the good ones in time. As for not robbing your bank, just to avoid any confusion, I would recommend that you start keeping your money in a mason jar buried in the back yard. You shouldn't have to worry about not drawing interest since not paying your taxes should more than make up for any money you might lose.
Or you could just keep it there and with FDIC insurance you could tap into the looting the treasury thing too. Automatic deposit and bank debit cards will limit physical trips to the bank and I can probably work out a schedule with you. :)
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete...good response, apparently, correcting 'flaunt' to 'flout'.
...could you do something with
'was powers' in the Lederman quote?
Who is Lederman?
ewo: Some recent interesting articles by various intellectuals have pointed out that there are inherent defects in our American system of government which made it an almost perfect plan for a government for a limited run, but not for an extended engagement.
ReplyDeleteHarper's magazine has recently published an article on the "unthinkable" idea of coup d'etat by the military in the US. The conversation is between various former military officers and military academics.
I haven't had a chance to read the article yet, but jodi gives a synopsis @ i cite. Her emphasis is on the sections that explore the notion that a coup has already occurred.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletecross-posted at shotgunfreude
ReplyDeleteIf you don't mind, I'll get a synopsis of this argument and a copy of Maloney's complaint to the Democratic AG in my state (Minnesota).
As for the question of retroactive effect of any new legislation baptizing the warrantless domestic spying, this would make a standing argument more difficult, but I don't think impossible. The administration would still have spent four and a half years continuously violating a criminal statute; those who were subject to it are still victims of a crime (and those who have reasonable suspicion of having been victims still have the same argument that the secrecy of the program necessitates compelled discovery); and while they arguably lose the ability to seek injunction as a remedy, they could still seek compensation and punitive damages for having been the victim in the past.
Even then, I think they would still have a reasonable argument to seek an injunction under the argument that the administration ignored the statute before and claimed the right to do so, so it is likely that they are continuing to violate the terms even of the new legislation, whatever form it takes.
And as for the political inability of Congress to discipline the executive, instead waiting to defer to the courts: I think Congress could and should do so without waiting for the courts. This assumes the Democrats take control of one or both houses this fall, as is likely. Politically it may polarize committed Republicans, but I think past experience with Clinton particularly has ingrained on us an overbroad understanding of political risk, when the facts were very different. Clinton was a very popular president who was impeached for an offense only obliquely related to his office. Stonewall Jackson also enjoyed far more popular support and committed a far less offensive act than Bush before Jackson was censured. Bush and Cheney are deeply unpopular with the general electorate, and their offense is against the core of the rule of law and the Constitutional separation of powers. Their situation is not comparable to those of the past. Never before has a president openly claimed the power to ignore the law.
The real problem is they have still successfully framed the NSA scandal as a debate on national security. We need to reframe the argument in the popular understanding: The law already provided an eminently effective way to gather intelligence on domestic telephone lines. The warrantless domestic spying program did nothing at all to add to, and is irrelevant to, our national security. Rather, this is strictly a debate about the rule of law and the Constitutional separation of powers: is the President bound to faithfully execute the law as the Constitution mandates, or has the Constitution been replaced by whatever secret legal memos the President orders up from the OLC from one month to the next.
If the public and Congress understand the debate in this, its true nature, there will be no political price at all outside of further alienating the fairly small immoveable core of GOP-according-to-Bush loyalists who are apparently going to be alienated anyway by any development away from Bush reigning as a dictator.
Beyond that, even the general understanding that Congress must wait for the courts to hold the president accountable is a reflection of the dangerous erosion of Congress's powers that has been in progress for decades. The Founders intended Congress to be the pre-eminent branch, authorized not coincidentally in the very first article of the Constitution.
The Constitutional Convention discussed the possibility of Congress appointing and dismissing executives as they were needed to accomplish discrete tasks. One of their long-running debates was whether to have a single chief executive or a group of co-equal top executives, and the terms of the debate centered on which option would be weaker and more easily accountable to the Congress; it was because they decided a single chief executive that would meet these conditions that they went with that option (see e.g. the record for June 1 and June 4, 1787). Other democracies have little problem calling new elections and replacing their prime minister when they grow dissatisfied with the one in office. Our office of president is different, and is impeachable only for high crimes and misdemeanors. Still, the double condition implies that it is not only high crimes, but also misdemeanors, i.e. minor crimes, that should disqualify the president from remaining in power.
We should get used to treating our chief executive as firmly accountable to the legislative branch as other democracies do and as the Founders intended for our own nation. Continuing to treat Congress as unable to check the authority of the President, even if for chiefly political reasons, can only further cement this precedent as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I usually first write and respond to the host article, then work my way through the comments.
ReplyDeleteI was just about to write a post saying that although I don't speak for him, I personally doubt Glenn would agree with the basic "feel" of AL's post of today.
I was then happy to see Glenn pop up and assert that very point.
If the AL's of this world (and I am a big, big fan of AL in many important ways) are right, then a Glenn Greenwald would be sort of irrelevant.
Because AL's post of today can really only lead one to what arne succinctly wrote as his conclusion"
We're f***ed.
Cheers,
I agree with that sentitment, with the sole caveat that there may still be time for a certain few (be they Glenn, or Russ Feingold or Paul Craig Roberts or Raimondo or other people with their philosophy of government and their morality) to stop the coming train-wreck.
If they don't, and of course I am still enough of an optimist to hope they will, then.....well....
We're f***ed.
Cheers
Because it's not going to be the incumbent and most of the presently campaigning Democrats or Daily Kos or any of those "usual suspects" who are going to save this country.
Eyes WIde Open said...
ReplyDelete"Why? Because the people in this country, for the most part, simply are too stupid to see what is going on, do not care, or are the ones doing the looting and thrilled with the way things are going."
I don't disagree with your observation but would add that over the last thirty years the system has been rigged so that not only do both spouses or partners have to work, but they are also working longer hours, making them too tired by the time they get home to pay attention to what is going on outside of their immediate lives. Add in a deteriorating education system and along with what you said, you have the recipe for the demise of America.
One of the things the communists learned early on was that if you can keep people busy enough just trying to survive they aren't going to have time to pay attention to what you are doing to them.
I give you; waiting in line to buy any and all commodities to include food as the next step on the road to hell.
Of course as in the Soviet Russian government, officials will have special stores where they won't have to wait in line and where they can purchase goods not available to the average citizen.
If the public and Congress understand the debate in this, its true nature, there will be no political price at all outside of further alienating the fairly small immoveable core of GOP-according-to-Bush loyalists who are apparently going to be alienated anyway by any development away from Bush reigning as a dictator
ReplyDeleteWhat is so maddeningly frustrating about this scandal is the fact that people don't understand the true nature of the threat. Those who are so afraid of terrorism that they'll let the President have unconstitutional power don't have the faintest idea what allowing him that power means. Even educated people who understand precedent seem to think it's Ok to let Bush flout the law to keep them safe, trusting that somehow the precedent will not be abused. The fact that this stands 200 years of law on its head doesn't get past their partisan loyalty.
It's at times like these that we turn to the media to keep politicians from pulling fast ones like anointing themselves king under the guise of protecting us from outside threats. Unfortunately the media has fallen victim to an assortment of systemic failures arising from a pathological inability to stay true to its historic function as watchdog. That's a whole other can o' worms, but we certainly have to hope the media learns to reclaim itself from the corporate stranglehold that now has it acting like the propaganda arm of govt.
In several months of reading this blog I've felt like there are two worlds in America. Contrast--the common sense view that this scandal is a threat to the very existence of our Constitutional Democracy with the sense one gets from the media that this is just the way things are in the post 9/11 world. I tend to think that if any POTUS in the past had made the claims Bush is making, the media would have immediately fanned the flames of outrage and very quickly the people would have demanded congress take action. Now they make it sound like this is just a slight twist on the way things work, and nobody should get too upset. As long as people aren't rioting in the streets, congress can put partisan loyalty above its constitutional responsibility.
I've assumed that if congress failed to do its job, the courts would eventually step in and slap Bush down. Hypatia and others are sure the courts will do the right thing once they get the case(s) heading their way. But when they decided not to look at Padilla, I felt for the first time that even the SCOTUS is now tuned to the political winds and will maintain the partisan divide that paralyzes the rest of govt these days. I still remain optimistic, but less so than even two days ago. Wouldn't a SCOTUS that understood how unreasonable the claims being made by the POTUS are have wanted to take on Padilla? I'll remain optimistic, but won't be shocked by anyhting at this point.
If the AL's of this world (and I am a big, big fan of AL in many important ways) are right, then a Glenn Greenwald would be sort of irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteBecause AL's post of today can really only lead one to what arne succinctly wrote as his conclusion"
We're f***ed.
I'm not sure I understand this sentiment. I was attempting to lay out a plausible path toward resolution of this impasse. I strongly agree with jao and hypatia that if this issue gets before the Court, the result will be a lop-sided defeat for the administration.
I don't think we should totally give up on Congress, but institutionally, Congress isn't in a good position to resolve this short of impeaching the president, and I just don't think that's realistic. So I think concerned members of Congress and various private and state actors should pursue a strategy designed to maximize the odds of a proper case reaching the Supreme Court, a case which directly challenges the President's claimed powers under Article II.
I don't think the situation is hopeless. Far from. But I think we need to be patient and allow this scandal and various legal challenges to run their course. In the meantime, we need to do our best to keep the media focused, keep the outrage simmering, and keep all legal channels open.
Armagednoutahere said...
ReplyDeleteI've assumed that if congress failed to do its job, the courts would eventually step in and slap Bush down. ... But when they decided not to look at Padilla, I felt for the first time that even the SCOTUS is now tuned to the political winds and will maintain the partisan divide that paralyzes the rest of govt these days. ... Wouldn't a SCOTUS that understood how unreasonable the claims being made by the POTUS are have wanted to take on Padilla? ...
I'm not sure; I think most of the justices in the holding really were relying on the standing issue; even if the standing argument was valid, I think they wanted to wait for a stronger fact pattern on which to base a powerful rebuke of the president.
Even though, like in Roe v. Wade, there's a strong argument that the court should issue a holding anyway to avoid the problem of a continuous stream of plaintiffs for whom the complaint becomes moot before the Supreme Court is able to issue its holding, albeit this time because the administration is purposely rigging it that way.
JaO said:
The belief that all "conservative" justices would support Bush on his radical claim of executive power is a misconception shared by wishful wingnuts and paranoid moonbats.
I have to agree here, based on Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004). Eight of the nine justices joined in the holding that included a rejection of the Bush administration's argument that Bush could not be restrained by law (in this case habeas corpus). Even the one dissenter, Scalia, said he would reject the claim the Bush administration made if Congress passed a statute conferring habeas on the Guantanamo detainees.
So nine out of nine justices (prior to the change in line-up at least) rejected the fundamental argument the Bush administration is relying on, that some U.S. constitution they have, that is apparently radically different than the one available for you and I to read, grants the president "inherent" authority to ignore the law, rather than being bound to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
With the new line-up I'd expect Sc-Alito to kowtow to anything Bush says, but that still gives us eight out of nine justices who I think will hold that Bush is far outside the authority of his office, once a rock-solid version of the Padilla case comes before them.
JaO writes: In the seminal separation-of-powers case during the so-called war on terror, Hamdi v Rumsfeld, the President's claim to exclusive constitutional domain was rejected 8-1. Scalia (joined by Stevens) wrote the dissent least favorable to the adminstration's case; Thomas was at the opposite end of the spectrum.
ReplyDeleteYes, I've employed Scalia's Hamdi dissent to exquisite benefit in arguing with Bush supporters who are so sure Bush's legal arguments would prevail in the NSA matter, and that only the "liberals" might vote against him. They really are left speechless by Scalia's paean to the rights of citizens even in a time of war; try it somewhere, it is fun to inflict hefty quotes of Scalia in Hamdi on mindless Bush supporters. (I've yet to find one that can actually call Scalia a moonbat, but it must eventually happen.)
But I also believe Bush would lose Thomas, whose langauge I have also used to shut them up. Thomas repeatedly said, in his Hamdi dissent, that while he did not believe the courts could interfere with Bush's authority, that Congress could. He went out of his way to say Congress has substantial authority in the national security area, but said that until it acted, he felt the courts could not prohibit Bush's detaining Hamdi as he was doing.
Congress has acted in the matter of warrantless NSA surveillance by passing FISA. And acted again in The Patriot Act amendments to FISA. I think Bush would lose Thomas, too, and the decison would be 9-0 against him.
So Bush is avoiding judicial review every which way he can, on multiple fronts.
gris lobo wrote : One of the things the communists learned early on was that if you can keep people busy enough just trying to survive they aren't going to have time to pay attention to what you are doing to them.
ReplyDeleteThis is of course true, along with your other keen observations, but is only part of the big picture.
I really believe nothing would be more important and instructive to any citizen of the United States who is moral and cares about individual liberty than to read "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
This brilliant, diabolical, evil, but horrifyingly true dissertation has been able to be entirely marginalized by ascribing its authorship to a certain sect of Zionest Jews, then fanning a world wide outcry against it by "proving" it was written by some lunatic Russian mystic.
The whole emphasis becomes who wrote it, and nobody reads it and takes it seriously.
I have never thought for a moment that that dissertation was written by Zionists but I continue to think it is the clearest blueprint for the scheme that has been used by, for want of a better word, The Ruling Class, to distract and then oppress their subjects, as they pursue their ever more grandiose and corrupt lunatic agendas.
I advise each person to get a copy, pretend you are reading something called "The Protocols of the Evil 'Old Boy's Club' and contrast every single part of the program laid out for world domination in that tract, no matter how bizarre and improbable and impossible and insane it all seems, against what is happening in present day America.
Ask yourself as you are reading "Why does a thing like Howard Stern get interviewed on Sean Hannity, admiringly, why are his endless publicity gambits, including all the phony lawsuits to get more publicity, powered by a conspiratorial press and featured on the front page of every newspaper, why is he on Huffington Post every day as a lead story, etc.?"
Who pays him hundreds of millions of dollars and why? You actually think that is the hand of the "free market"? Puh....leeze.
Finally, one of the things that gives me least hope is to see how easy it is to fool people.
Try telling the Lefty blogs that Murtha is part of the corrupt, military/ industrial Big Government machine and you will be sneered at. It's enough to have him come out against this particular failed war effort to completely fool them.
I disagree with the statement that "Geography is history." Unfortunately, I think "I.Q. is history."
The men of genius have always operated as individuals, at least when they do their important work and have not yet sold out, and not as part of a collective. But "collective" is what power and Government are all about.
I would sum up the history of the last few hundred years as follows:
You have "The Fountainhead", which is a hymn to the Individual.
You have the Instruction Manuel for destroying the individual: "The Protocols of the Old Boys Club."
The more advanced the scheme to destroy the individual becomes, the more Orwell's "1984" looks like Shangri-La.
BTW, I don't mind reading bart's posts. He tells you what he believes, and then gives one of the most succinct, accurate previews of every strategm, legal argument, political game plan, etc., that the Republicans will use.
If you read Bart, you don't even have to go to one Right Wing site to find out what is and will be happening.
I DO mind reading the Tokyo Roses (jao and hypatia) on this site, whose posts are, either unintentionally or intentionally, filled with distortion, disinformation, false assessments and incorrect predictions.
Their motives are between them and their Dogs, but I'm on scroll from now on when I see their posts.
We also can't forget the potential for good from the various authorities uncovering the vast Abramoff fraud machine that just toppled DeLay, and which the administration has so far refused to cooperate with. What chance do you think that the White House was not at all involved in this? Cast your mind to the infamous photo of Bush backslapping with Abramoff's tribal client as Abramoff looks on. Bribery is one of only two crimes specifically listed in the Constitution as cause for impeachment.
ReplyDeleteAnd no matter what the high crime or misdemeanor, the Constitution mandates that a guilty president "shall be" impeached; it is a requirement, not a matter for congressional discretion.
LeonardShelby writes: With the new line-up I'd expect Sc-Alito to kowtow to anything Bush says, but that still gives us eight out of nine justices who I think will hold that Bush is far outside the authority of his office, once a rock-solid version of the Padilla case comes before them.
ReplyDeleteNothing in Alito's confirmation hearing testimony bodes well for Bush in the warrantless spying matter. He made it clear he embraces Jackson's Youngstown opinion, and that no one, including the president, is above the law.
Why do you Alito haters think Bush first tried to send up an utter joke like Harriet Miers? She was chosen because she is a mediocrity with little expertise in constitutional law, who is literally afflicted with a severe case of hero worship vis-a-vis George Bush. That's what Bush had to resort to in order to try to put a sure vote for his extreme theories of Executive power on the bench.
Sam Alito is a, you know, actual scholarly type who respects the law and our constitutional order. The difference between him and Miers is like the difference between a Harlequin romance novel and Shakespeare. Yet Bush first tried to foist Miers on us; there was a reason for that.
I think the reason that this post sounds so defeatist to some of us is the title “endgame” which implies that we’ve almost run out of options, and this issue is sputtering to a conclusion with fewer and fewer options left.
ReplyDeleteI think if Glenn were freed from publishing prison, he would have a much more upbeat take on this, or at least phrased it differently to imply that we are in a long war here, and this is far from over.
AL writes: If either the DeWine or the Specter bill passes, it will bring the NSA program within the letter of the law.
Do we know that for sure? Isn’t that assuming that the NSA program is in “good faith” monitoring only suspected Al Qaeda members and not political enemies?
If the NSA program were actually monitoring Russ Feingold’s communications because the White House considers him a “threat to National Security” would that be really legal under the proposed legislation? Could the White House continue to engage in such activities without any oversight without violating such legislation?
AL : The passage of the DeWine or Specter bills would not retroactively legalize the surveillance that has already occurred, but it would make it very difficult to construct a viable legal vehicle for challenging the President's Article II theories.
Sounds pessimistic to me. If Bush gets a ticket for going 55 in a 25 mph zone and Congress 4 years later passes a law designating that zone as a 55 mph zone, at least politically, you can still say that Bush broke the law -- I don’t think this legislation changes that argument at all. It’s just that this argument hasn’t been put to the public in such simple terms nor has it been effectively tied to the lack of oversight from FISA, Congress or anyone else.
AL: For this reason, I've come to the conclusion that the best strategy for Democrats to pursue is to vigorously oppose any further amendments to FISA, at least until the courts have had a chance to weigh in on this issue.
My gut feeling is that this is a loser. Democrats should embrace any changes to FISA that makes it compatible with new technology, but focus on the “oversight” aspects of the law, which will prevent abuses of power. In other words, don’t oppose, but suggest that this law needs to be strengthened to avoid a future Nixon from doing what he wants.
Perhaps because of AL’s legal focus, he’s shortchanging the political opportunities here. Granted, the Democrats have not taken advantage of them and have shown a total lack of principle, but that does not rule out the potential of these talking points resonating with the public.
Remember, the vast majority of Americans once believed that Saddam was behind 9/11, and those numbers have consistently come down as Bush’s approval has dropped.
The idea that Bush has broken the law is gaining traction politically. AL’s focus is on setting up cases for a “legal” remedy, and by doing so, he discounts and dismisses the political opportunities that should not be dismissed so quickly.
We don’t know the “endgame” of this issue. We’re not there yet.
Politically, the Bush administration is backed into a corner and is fighting for it’s life – unfortunately, the spineless Democrats only see the snarling, but fail to recognize that the beast is trapped. Once they do, they just might start acting out of principle instead of fear.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteEWO enlightens us:I really believe nothing would be more important and instructive to any citizen of the United States who is moral and cares about individual liberty than to read "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."…
ReplyDeleteThis brilliant, diabolical, evil, but horrifyingly true dissertation Ask yourself as you are reading "Why does a thing like Howard Stern get interviewed on Sean Hannity, admiringly, why are his endless publicity gambits, including all the phony lawsuits to get more publicity, powered by a conspiratorial press and featured on the front page of every newspaper, why is he on Huffington Post every day as a lead story, etc.?"
I just thought that all bore repeating, and that every claim EWO makes should be considered in light of what the above indicates about his/her judgment.
I further wish for lurking readers to understand that this sort of thing is not typical of the level of commentary here.
"Hypatia" said...
ReplyDeleteThe difference between him and Miers is like the difference between a Harlequin romance novel and Shakespeare.
Hilarious!
But this is also the guy who as an OLC climber opined that judges should give presidential signing statements significant weight in interpreting a statute - suggesting the executive is some kind of co-legislator with independent powers relative to the statutes passed by Congress.
And, I think you might be giving Bush too much credit on his "strategery" behind Miers. It was also the first great blow to Bush's support among his core base. I don't think he planned on Miers not getting confirmed, and further, I don't think he really understands the difference between a journeyman lawyer and a constitutional scholar in the first place - any more than he would understand the difference between a Harlequin novel and Shakespeare.
I'm sure his handlers were probably trying to convince him to name Alito in the first place - or maybe Luttig in the first place until he took affront to the DOJ's antics - and Bush thought he'd try taking some action not suggested by Cheney or Rove for once, and got burned. But those are just my impressions.
There is no serious question that the NSA program is illegal.
ReplyDeleteBut any person must be SMOKING CRACK to think that the Court would rule against the administration absent Congressional hearings and evidence that the program isn't necessary for national security.
Once again, the Court ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT EVER IN A MILLION YEARS declare illegal a plan that POTUS states is essential for national security unless his claim is disputed by Congress and facts are provided that the Court can cite in its opinion.
And I don't care whether Thomas and Scalia were replaced with Larry Tribe and Ronald Dworkin -- the result would be no different. SCOTUS is not a fact-finding body, and although we know enough facts to determine that FISA wasn't complied with, it's arguable that we don't really know whether complying with FISA really would have endangered national security. And absent citable facts to the contrary, how could SCOTUS ever rule against the administration?
And guess what. As much as I hate to say it, that's how it should be. I don't want the Supreme Court substituting its judgment for that of the Administration AND Congress on national security issues -- SCOTUS just aint qualified.
The Court will rule on this only if Congress makes a big stink. So we need to win in '06, investigate, and censure or impeach. That will give the Court some ammo. Absent that, the Court will just punt based on lack of standing or mootness or the political question doctrine or who knows what else.
I'm interested to hear whether people feel this is correct -- it's crystal clear to me.
Cheney says they have all the authority they need,... which is none at all, but they don't need any at all. They don't need no stinkin badges. They have the guns!
ReplyDeleteTo anonymous:
ReplyDeleteYou state "But any person must be SMOKING CRACK to think that the Court would rule against the administration absent Congressional hearings and evidence that the program isn't necessary for national security."
I have to ask: what do you base that on? I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily, but I'd like to know how you arrive at that conclusion.
Democrats should embrace any changes to FISA that makes it compatible with new technology, but focus on the “oversight” aspects of the law, which will prevent abuses of power. In other words, don’t oppose, but suggest that this law needs to be strengthened to avoid a future Nixon from doing what he wants.
ReplyDeleteBut it's the "oversight" aspects of the current law that are being disregarded. The current law could not be clearer about requiring judicial sign off on surveillance. The law could not possibly be "strengthened to avoid a future Nixon from doing what he wants" because Bush claims he is not bound by the law. FISA was passed precisely in order to keep presidents from doing whatever they want. But Bush claims he has the constitutional power to disregard the law. So amending the law doesn't really accomplish anything.
Sounds pessimistic to me. If Bush gets a ticket for going 55 in a 25 mph zone and Congress 4 years later passes a law designating that zone as a 55 mph zone, at least politically, you can still say that Bush broke the law -- I don’t think this legislation changes that argument at all.
I fully agree and I didn't say otherwise. But mounting a legal challenge against ongoing law-breaking is much easier than mounting a legal challenge to past law-breaking. This has to do with standing. Suits like the ACLU's and the Maloney complaint ask for injunctive and declaratory relief (i.e. a declaration that the law is being broken and an order for it to stop). Those remedies would no longer be available if the program were legalized. And asking for damages for past conduct implicates soveriegn immunity considerations and requires proof of actual surveillance on specified individuals. So while new legislation does not absolve Bush of his past law-breaking, it makes it very difficult for a proper case to be brought before a court.
Pure cold calculation tells me that we would be better off with Specter's amended FISA than with waiting for courts to produce anything.
ReplyDeleteLet's be honest, the courts are likely to produce nothing in foreseeable future. Just think Padilla.
Specter (may I suggest you read him again?) gives the FISA court some teeth, not much but some (*), which is kind of important if we are to have any oversight over what the security agencies are doing these days.
Congress basically gave up trying to do anything. When they recently asked the Bush administration - are you breaking into people's homes?, do you open their mail?, do you go through their medical records? - they got - that's none of your business, this stuff is classified, we won't tell you anything. Same with all the other questions. So basically the entire scope of the security apparatus operations in this country is outside any effective outside oversight. (Hatch is not oversight)
The danger of permitting that is hard to overestimate, this is the area where the oversight is most needed because this is how Stasis operated in East Germany.
Congress needs to know exactly what the government is doing, what methods they use, how intrusive they are, the scope of their operations, how many people are employed in them, how many citizens are affected, what the results are so far, etc.
This is essential information than no democratic government should ever be permitted to withhold from elected bodies. To use a fashionable term, the Congress should have full "situational awareness" if it is to fulfill its oversight responsibilities.
But this Congress has its tail between its legs. Specter is the only hope for anything.
And forget litigating in courts, too many Alitos there.
--------------
* far more improvements to FISA are needed - permitting its judges to review government assertions, consent of the Senate for future nominations to the FISA court and especially its court of review, requiring that no harm (reputation , job, family, health) to the citizen should results as a result of what the government does pursuant to court orders - but these will have to wait for more enlightened days.
** deWine is unacceptable, illusion of oversight at best.
But any person must be SMOKING CRACK to think that the Court would rule against the administration absent Congressional hearings and evidence that the program isn't necessary for national security.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that's true at all. First of all, no further evidence is necessary to assess the legal questions at issue. It's purely a matter of law.
Second, faced with the possibility of a negative court ruling, the administration would give the justices any information they need, under seal if necessary. If there are any relevant facts that help the governments case, you better believe they'll make them available to the court.
Third, the court has shown a willingness to address these issues regardless of the level of opposition in Congress. The Hamdi case was decided 8-1 against the administration at a time when Congress would not have lifted a finger to question what the administration was doing. The court takes its job and the constitution seriously and it knows that there are some issues where political pressures keep Congress from doing what is right and what is constitutional.
I'm not saying that the Court would for sure grant cert in to a case like this, but the lack of opposition from Congress is not going to prevent them from doing so.
I wonder whether anyone remembers the Argentine exile who several weeks ago wrote here about his own experiences during the military takeover. He said (I paraphrase from memory) that all the time that the military consolidated its power and finally took over, the lawyers were saying to respect the law--the legal system will save us. They said this up until the time they themselves began to be disappeared.
ReplyDeleteI hate to add to the pessimistic rhetoric emanatng from recent comments, but I do not think that the courts will have much say in this. I think that the executive branch could simply continue to break the law, telling SCOTUS, "what're you gonna do?" And they could do nothing.
Only Congress can legitimately bring the executive to task for its crimes. People expect that to happen in a representative form of government where people "hire" their elected representatives to enforce the public will.
This last point may simply turn out to be academic, however. Given the Dems' lack of clarity on where they stand on this issue, even were they to win both houses of Congress one wonders whether they'd simply try to mollify the executive branch through compromise and mealy-mouthed platitudes.
There's something seriously wrong here--and what it is is difficult to pinpoint. Someone talked about "soft theocracy" in another posting. Richard Sennett, on the other hand, calls it "soft fascism." This is a situation in which the fear and terror don't dress up in brown shirts and jack boots. It's one where social conformity and a prevailing culture of fear color our entire existence.
This description only captures the emotional tone of the threat. It doesn't explain why or how the liberals have simply given up in their fight against this new form of fascism. Sennett's analysis is important because it explains how and why the liberal side of the American political spectrum refuses to engage this soft fascism.
According to Sennett:
For a long time the American intellectual left has been out of touch with the American people. It has spoken in the name of the people but not to them. Now, in the reconfigured landscape of economics, class and culture, however, the educated, cosmopolitan liberal is a social victor. Even the sculptor in Fanelli's struggling to make ends meet is a social victor; nobody can rob him of his work and worth.
The right has perhaps understood that victory better than the victors themselves, in giving fresh life to the taunts of "cultural elitism" aimed at the intellectual left. The attack embodies a classic dilemma: when a young man with a good degree and an expensive lap-top attacks injustice, the ordinary person feels patronised.
For the past four years, the rich and powerful in America have capitalised on just this social distance, between the cultural elite and people beset by anxieties about personal insufficiency and mutual respect. The victors have defended themselves by saying, but we are just like you, loyal Americans; the defence rings false because they aren't domestically the same. Those bewildered glances out of Fanelli's window, the knowing sniggers at Cooper Union, are signs of an inequality as ambiguous as the word "American".
Sennett's comments have been echoed even more strongly and radically by Slavoj Zizek, in his work on "liberal communists" like Soros and Gates. Both analyses point to the nature of the effete alienation of those who might fight for the dispossessed and exploited lower classes. They belong to a professional class that is rootless and cannot connect either emotionally or cognitively to those who've lost out in our society.
But I fear I've already passed the limit for a proper blog comment...
LeonardShelby writes: But this is also the guy who as an OLC climber opined that judges should give presidential signing statements significant weight in interpreting a statute - suggesting the executive is some kind of co-legislator with independent powers relative to the statutes passed by Congress.
ReplyDeleteAnd, I think you might be giving Bush too much credit on his "strategery" behind Miers. It was also the first great blow to Bush's support among his core base. I don't think he planned on Miers not getting confirmed
But look, it was Sam Alito's job at OLC to suggest to the Executive that if Congress gets to have its intent considered in the form of legislative history, then so should the Executive have some evidence of its intent regarding a law it signs. That's creative, and not at all to Alito's discredit. Former defense attorneys, once on the bench, will rule in favor of the police. Former prosecutors, in favor of upholding the 4th Am against unreasonable searches. If anything, Sam Alito knows that when he was in the DoJ, nobody would have ignored the plain meaning of Youngstown as the Bush lawyers have done.
Immediately upon graduating from law school, I practiced in a small Midwestern town, and the firm I worked for was hired as counsel to the city. I was assigned to draft a "disorderly house" statute that was primarily going to be used to, among other things, facilitate asset forfeiture for people using or selling drugs in their homes. It. About. Killed. Me. (See my "Prison and the War on Drugs" guest post here, for some idea of how I feel about harming people in the name of the so-called drug war.) Anybody knowing only that about my professional career would be wildly, wildly mistaken to think I support asset forfeiture laws in general, or when they applied to drug cases in particular.
As to Miers. She was not chosen for the abortion issue. She was chosen because she has said things such as that George Bush is the most brilliant man she has ever met, and she quite literally adores him. She has been involved in his discussions of Executive power in the inner sanctums, and agrees with them. That's why she was chosen; Bush could not trust that a real scholar of the law would vote his way. Unfortunately for him -- and rather amusingly -- his base was unconvinced that she was really anti-Roe. He doesn't actually care about that; but his base does. So he lost his sure-bet vote for his theories of Executive power, which is his over-riding concern.
People dismissively refer to Alito as "Scalito." Well I tell you what: read Scalia's dissent in Hamdi and then tell me that would be a bad thing.
the cynic librarian said...
ReplyDelete"There's something seriously wrong here--and what it is is difficult to pinpoint. Someone talked about "soft theocracy" in another posting. Richard Sennett, on the other hand, calls it "soft fascism." This is a situation in which the fear and terror don't dress up in brown shirts and jack boots. It's one where social conformity and a prevailing culture of fear color our entire existence."
You are absolutely right, there is something very very wrong here and it has been for quite some time.
I blame Clinton for accelerating it but he wasn't the beginning. I think to find the beginning you have to go back all the way to right after WWII. Around 1947. Research that and I think you'll find the answer.
AL: But Bush claims he has the constitutional power to disregard the law. So amending the law doesn't really accomplish anything.
ReplyDeleteI agree with that completely. But I think that a way needs to be found (politically) to make that point, and “opposing” such legislation will just enable them to use their smear tactics about not wanting to monitor Osama’s calls.
If they are not going to be able to stop such legislation, perhaps a more effective tactic would be for Democrats (as a block) to just “abstain” saying such legislation is completely irrelevant since the President isn’t bound by it anyway.
Is there an equivalent tactic to a “boycott” that Reid could pull off that would make this point? Something like having all Democrats just walk off and not vote at all to make the “political” point about this legislation’s irrelevancy? If they don’t have the votes to stop it, why give them their talking points to smear them?
Something like that needs to be done to say to the public that this isn’t business as usual. Desperate times call for some new tactics.
gris: Yeah, I'll look into it. I agree with Sennett, though, that what's happening has its genesis in something new--this is the new ethos that Sennett documents. Its time-frame begins mid-80s and has much to do with the development of soft technology and its impact on work.
ReplyDeleteIf they are not going to be able to stop such legislation, perhaps a more effective tactic would be for Democrats (as a block) to just “abstain” saying such legislation is completely irrelevant since the President isn’t bound by it anyway.
ReplyDeleteBut they can stop such legislation. They can fight it politically and they can filibuster if necessary. Abstention might make for good political theater, but it won't make the legal cases any less moot when the new legislation becomes law.
"Hypatia" said...
ReplyDeleteBut look, it was Sam Alito's job at OLC to suggest to the Executive that if Congress gets to have its intent considered in the form of legislative history, then so should the Executive have some evidence of its intent regarding a law it signs. That's creative, and not at all to Alito's discredit.
Fair enough, but I felt his signing statement memo was clearly erroneous and therefore beyond the pale of zealous representation (much like, though not to the same degree, as John Yoo's entire body of work product). Besides which, although the DOJ has forgotten the fact, as Gonzales has repeatedly made clear, the DOJ's client is the United States, not the individual who holds the office of president. Zealous representation of the United States does not comprise advocating outlandish theories to aggrandize the president's power.
People dismissively refer to Alito as "Scalito." Well I tell you what: read Scalia's dissent in Hamdi and then tell me that would be a bad thing.
Not at all - I've been a huge fan of half of Scalia's brain since Kyllo v. U.S. I'd rather have another Scalia from a parallel universe on the bench than Alito. I expect Scalia is waiting for the right chance to mirror Luttig's indignation at the administration's shenanigans in his denial of the DOJ's motion to transfer Padilla.
Armagednoutahere said...
ReplyDeleteI've learned from Bart that he and many others are scared enough to be willing to give up some constitutional rights in order to feel safer.
:::heh:::
Exactly which of my rights did I say I was giving up? I sure don't remember saying anything of the kind.
Exactly what rights do you think you have given up?
Unless you are calling or being called from an international telephone number captured from al Qaeda, you are not being intercepted.
If you are making such calls and are not yourself an agent or supporter of al Qaeda, then you fall into the group of unwitting people who have been legally surveilled for years when a target contacts or is contacted by them.
Neither you or I have given up a single constitutional right that existed prior to Mr. Bush taking office.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteStop it, just stop it! As AL said, "the problem is the president's radical assertion of authority." We aren't playing Donkey vs. Elephant here. We're playing POTUS vs. The People.
No, it is 70%+ of the people who support this program, nearly all of the Congress, nearly all of the press, and the President against the leftist blogosphere, the NYT which illegally blew the cover for the Program and a few libertarians.
LeonardShelby writes:Not at all - I've been a huge fan of half of Scalia's brain since Kyllo v. U.S. I'd rather have another Scalia from a parallel universe on the bench than Alito.
ReplyDeleteKyllo is my happy bedtime reading. A few weeks ago, someone here claimed in comments that Scalia is a totalitarian thug who will contract the 4th Am and is aiming at a police state. I couldn't believe such ignorance, and went and retrieved hefty sections of his Kyllo opinion to set that person straight.
Kyllo, Hamdi...so many of his opinions are a civil libertarian's dream. Of course, then there is Raich, about which I can only weep.
Anyway, I just don't think Alito's "signing statement" memo is at all a big deal. So he contrived a creative way to manufacture some Executive equivalent of legislative history? Doesn't mean the SCOTUS will pay it any attention, or no more so than they do actual legislative history. Clinton thought those statements were way nifty, too; we are only so upset by the idea now because of Bush's Yoo theories, when everything pro-Executive is suddenly being examined with a microscope. But I don't believe Sam Alito will abandon the role of the other two branches in favor of John Yoo, any more than Scalia has.
I have nothing to do with Al-Quaida, but that doesn't guarantee me that my calls are not being listened to. Neither you nor I nor anyone but those doing the warrantless eavesdropping know for sure who's being tapped. I call that a loss of a right. To know with absolute certainty that my calls are not being monitored without a warrant means I can be sure that my nobody can listen to my calls without convincing a judge I'm involved in something nefarious. That's good enough for me to rest assured my innocence protects me from abusive search. As it is, I have no such assurance, other than the trust that the guys in charge are being very careful. From everything I've seen in the last five years, I have absolutely zero faith in the competence of those now in charge. More than ever it's at times like these that I want to know my constitutional right to reasonable searches is being guaranteed. And I don't agree with you the POTUS has the right to conduct warrantless searches. I'm willing to bet money we find out the SCOTUS agrees with me and disagrees with you.
ReplyDeletePS I knew you were going to say this.
bart: No, it is 70%+ of the people who support this program...
ReplyDeleteBart you should at least be honest about those statistics you throw around so cavalierly. (And stop watching agitprop from Faux News)According to Think Progress:
A little more than a week ago, the right-wingers heralded the results of a poll that they claimed showed a majority of Americans supporting Bush’s illegal warrantless wiretapping policy. Here’s what that poll found:
"Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States."
...
But there was a big problem with the poll question — it failed to say that President Bush was conducting the wiretapping without a warrant. Today, a new AP poll was released showing what Americans truly think of Bush’s policy:
"56 percent of respondents in an AP-Ipsos poll said the government should be required to first get a court warrant to eavesdrop on the overseas calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens when those communications are believed to be tied to terrorism."
Over 70% of Americans support a chief executive who is not accountable to laws passed by Congress.
ReplyDeleteOver 70% of Americans support a chief executive monitoring other Americans without getting warrants and without any oversight from Congress and the courts.
Over 70% of Americans believe that the Constitution gives the chief executive unlimited powers in a time of war, even though we are now in a perpetual war with no end.
Over 70% percent of Americans believe…… whatever our trolls say they believe…..
It’s a good thing trolls don’t need any actual evidence to back up their claims, because the last time I checked, no where near 70% of Americans were still worshipping George Bush.
Anonymous Liberal, excellent post.
ReplyDeleteI would like to point out one more very important problem with the Specter bill.
This section:
‘‘(3) RESUBMISSION OR APPEAL.—The Attorney General shall be permitted to submit a new application under section 703 for the electronic surveillance program, reflecting modifications to address the concerns set forth in the written opinion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. There shall be no limit on the number of times the Attorney General may seek approval of an electronic surveillance program. Alternatively, the Attorney General shall be permitted to appeal the decision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review.
--------
This section allows the AG to repeatedly resubmit any "program" that was denied by a FISA judge back to the FISA court. The FISA court has eleven rotating members but only one judge hears a FISA request. This section would allow the administration to shop this to every individual FISA judge and creates a situation where a program could only be denied with a unanimous decision by all eleven FISA court members and a majority of the FISA appeals court. This turns even the idea of a "secret court" upside down.
This language in the bill is intentional. The Specter legislation is a travesty of a mockery of a sham.
eyes wide open said...
"I really believe nothing would be more important and instructive to any citizen of the United States who is moral and cares about individual liberty than to read "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
"I DO mind reading the Tokyo Roses (jao and hypatia) on this site..."
If you are serious... you are fucking nuts.
If you are trolling... Bravo. Although your inability to post links has been an endless source of amusement to me, I thought you were somewhat sincere. But the question now becomes, WHY.
Bart said
ReplyDeleteNo, it is 70%+ of the people who support this program, nearly all of the Congress, nearly all of the press, and the President against the leftist blogosphere, the NYT which illegally blew the cover for the Program and a few libertarians.
You're not talking to rubes here. This bogus bending of facts may work on people not paying attention, but for those who are, it's clear what people are in favor of is aggressive monitoring of Al-Quaida. When people understand you're talking about illegal, warrantless monitoring, support suddenly shifts away from "the program" in favor of impeachment. Not quite the same thing. You can tell yourself warrantless monitoring is legal, but as I just said, I'll bet you dinner the SCOTUS disagrees. I haven't seen any polls asking if people think warrantless monitoring is legal, nor would it matter I suppose, as it's clear from this blog even you lawyers can't agree on the facts, but from my basic undersatnding of good old American civics, warrantless eavesdropping would make the Founding Fathers grab their guns. I remember my impression after reading The Federalist Papers in college that they thought the President should be reined in very tightly by congress. If i recall correctly, they debated even having a POTUS for awhile. That doesn't square with your contentions about Article II. My guess is all your lawyering will be meaningless as the question of warrantless wiretaps goes to the very heart of Constitutional law and the SCOTUS will slap Bush down hard and fast. I'm not as sure as I was a couple days ago, but after reading some of the posts here today I have a better understanding of why they turned down Padilla, so I'm not as disappointed as I was yesterday.
Once again, you're willing to trust the govt far beyond what the Founding fathers thought advisable. I know you're a partisan Republican, but your trust is the kind politicians of every stripe take advantage of.
Eyes Wide Open:
ReplyDeleteI read the Fountainhead in high school. It annoyed me because I couldn't figure out immediately what was wrong with it - but then I did.
It's the underlying assumption. Humans are not just individuals, each with our own, individual rights and properties. We are families, we are communities, we are bonded to each other in deep ways: setting aside land for common use makes sense. If each man has his acre and can do anything he wants with it, so much for woodpeckers.
I do like some things about libertarians - being from Alaska I'm familiar with them. There are two sets - one set tends to be pretty far right and intolerant and, by the way, anti-semitic literature can be found in some of their homes. The others however are consistent - they will stand up for the right to smoke grass for example - and kind-hearted.
Really it's more complex than Ayn Rand wanted to believe. Individual rights, civil liberties, are very important. But humans are tribal by nature, actually, and there's a communal element to our make-up which she simply ignored. And unless I missed something, she didn't even mention negative externalities - that if you put up a building with a smokestack on your privately owned land, the neighbors breathe your pollution. Or maybe she did work it in somehow and I don't remember, she wouldn't have used that word, the whole concept wasn't as widespread when she was writing. It is indeed a well-written and provocative book, a good one for high school political science courses, but hardly the last word! It truly surprised me that you would include it in the three main historical works that we need to be aware of!
I won't get into the Protocols of whatever-you-want-to-call-it. But the assault we're experiencing is not merely an assault on the individual my friend. It is an assault on the community as well.
nuf said: The right has spoken to the people by fronting an unsophisticated idiot the people can relate to and by having him thump the bible every now and then. There is nothing like a little fear of GOD to make you think twice before questioning your glorious king.
ReplyDeleteExactly. The front here is the "messiah-king" Bush (see the agitprop film, "Faith in the WH). The way they construe the supernatural of the Xtian faith correlates to what Sennett calls the "invisible hand." This gives people the idea that the war, economic exploitation, and so on are predetermined, the will of an inscrutable god, beyond any of our control, etc.
Stir in the fact that many evangelicals are Dispensationalists, a brand of millenarianism (think Left Behind here) and you have a game plan for control and exploitation that many believe is "from god."
The neocons have read their Marx very well. They've applied Marx's opiate of the masses to a sad, tragi-comic degree. Many of those who are evangelical come from the lower classes. They are often the ones who've been drug addicts, criminals, outcasts--brought into the "system" via conversion.
Their lives indeed have turned around--but they have been deceived into believing a lie, the lie that a socio-political system can accomplish god's will.
Many of those who are evangelical come from the lower classes. They are often the ones who've been drug addicts, criminals, outcasts--brought into the "system" via conversion.
ReplyDeleteYou truly don't know what you're talking about. This could be one of the most laughable, ridiculous, and purely ignorant remarks I've ever seen on this blog.
Have you ever met an evangelical Christian? If so, do you know any personally?
You say that "many" evangelicals come from the "lower classes." What do mean by “many”? The following article illustrates that evangelical Christians are largely in the middle class:
Evangelical Christianity
Some excerpts:
“…over the last 40 years, evangelicals have pulled steadily closer in income and education to mainline Protestants in the historically affluent establishment denominations.”
“Evangelical Christians are now increasingly likely to be college graduates and in the top income brackets.”
Can you provide even one cite that supports your contention that drug addition and criminality are more rampant among evangelical Christians than among other societal groups? The entire notion is counter-intuitive. Do you have any facts to back up this statement?
Stir in the fact that many evangelicals are Dispensationalists
What do you mean by “many”?
the cynic librarian said...
ReplyDeletebart: No, it is 70%+ of the people who support this program...
Bart you should at least be honest about those statistics you throw around so cavalierly. (And stop watching agitprop from Faux News)According to Think Progress:
A little more than a week ago, the right-wingers heralded the results of a poll that they claimed showed a majority of Americans supporting Bush’s illegal warrantless wiretapping policy. Here’s what that poll found:
"Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States."
Actually, my figure comes from another poll which Glenn posted 3-4 weeks ago, I think by Pew.
"56 percent of respondents in an AP-Ipsos poll said the government should be required to first get a court warrant to eavesdrop on the overseas calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens when those communications are believed to be tied to terrorism."
This poll question is not accurate.
1) It assumes that the government can get warrants at will, which it cannot. It needs to ask whether the respondent would support the NSA Program even if the government does not get a warrant.
2) The poll also loads the question by making the targets American citizens rather than the much more accurate "people living in the United States." There is no evidence that any American citizens are being surveilled. All of the al Qaeda in America which we have found are immigrants from Muslim countries.
Bart -
ReplyDeleteAren't you also the one routinely pointing out how worthless polls are as measures of 'genuine' public support/opposition on any given subject?
Re:
ReplyDeleteAll of the al Qaeda in America which we have found are immigrants from Muslim countries.
Really? Have you heard of Jose Padilla?
There is no evidence that any American citizens are being surveilled.
Precisely the problem. No one (not even the FISA court) has any information on who is being surveilled. All we'd like to see is the administration's secret actions subject to a little judicial oversight.
You can split your legal hairs all day along but in the end, the questions remain:
1. What is the administration afraid of?
2. Why are you so motivated to advance the case that the administration need not subject itself to judicial oversight? Let's be clear, submitting to judicial oversight will NOT hurt the country while refusing to do so is very likely to.
HWSNBN sez dishonestly [see MRPC 8.4(c), also 8.3]:
ReplyDeleteUnless you are calling or being called from an international telephone number captured from al Qaeda, you are not being intercepted.
If you are making such calls and are not yourself an agent or supporter of al Qaeda, then you fall into the group of unwitting people who have been legally surveilled for years when a target contacts or is contacted by them.
HWSNBN ignores the fact that FISA requires probable cause and a warrant for taps that target "U.S persons", regardless of the basis for that targeting, but doesn't require either probable cause or a warrant under FISA if the target is in fact a foreign al Qaeda agent ... or any other foreign targe (this is the fact situation suggested by his first paragraph). No one has argued that the NSA is violating any laws under the latter set of facts (but HWSNBN dishonestly tries to make you think that is the situation in question under the Dubya wiretap program).
By conflating these two situations, he suggests that simply being an "associate" (i.e., a person who has ever had a phone call to/from a wiretappable "target", to use the wiretapese terminology) of a known al Qaeda agent is sufficient justification to wiretap that "associate" as well (see his second paragraph).
More importantly, the troll HWSNBN tries to muddle the issue as to whether the intercept is due to a legal targeting of the al Qaeda agent for the duration of the call while you happen to be calling, or whether they're tapping your phone without a warrant for all your calls just because your number came up in association (perhaps innocently) with the al Qaeda agent. The latter case requires that probable cause be shown and a warrant obtained, under the existing FISA law.
The distinction as to who is the "target" is important, but the troll HWSNBN tries to muddle that question with his phrasing, rather than point out that distinction.
If the maladministration is of the opinion that a lesser degree of suspicion ought to be the threshold for targeting you in such cases (and that it's just your tough luck if you are then innocently caught up in a tap due to this lesser standard of suspicion allowing for more error), then they ought to get the law changed. Publicly. And legally. Violating the law because it doesn't allow them to do what they want is simply lawless behaviour.
Cheers,
the cynic librarian said...
ReplyDelete"gris: Yeah, I'll look into it. I agree with Sennett, though, that what's happening has its genesis in something new--this is the new ethos that Sennett documents. Its time-frame begins mid-80s and has much to do with the development of soft technology and its impact on work."
Interesting, but I'm not familiar with Sennett. Where can I read what he/she wrote?
JaO writes: You have hit upon an example of Scalia's tendency to lecture his colleagues in his dissents,
ReplyDeleteTo understate. Try "lampoon, parody and ridicule" his colleagues. And I am frequently quite amused.
Bart said:
ReplyDelete"Unless you are calling or being called from an international telephone number captured from al Qaeda, you are not being intercepted."
Bart, do you think if repeat your same bs often enough that it will be believed just because you keep saying it.
Patriot Act and FISA wiretaps catch a Baby-Food Thief
Tue Apr 04 2006 10:03:08 ET
The case of Samih Jammal, convicted with the help of the Patriot Act and FISA wiretaps of fencing stolen baby formula, sits on the fine line between the government's terrorism-fighting role and its duty to protect citizen's rights.
The WALL STREET JOURNAL reports the use of FISA warrants helped prosecuted Arizona grocery wholesaler Jammal, who was convicted of operating a baby formula theft ring.
The JOURNAL notes that Jammal, a "U.S. citizen born in Lebanon, was never charged with any offense related to terrorism."
Jammal "is appealing, contending that FISA evidence used against him was illegally obtained and crippled his defense. ... 'It's baby formula of mass destruction here,' he said at one pretrial hearing."
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/
ReplyDeleteThere's another interesting suit. The Electronic Frontier Foundation sued AT&T for collaborating with the NSA in an illegal spying program. From the FAQ: "EFF, on behalf of a nationwide class of AT&T customers, is suing to stop this illegal conduct and hold AT&T responsible for its illegal collaboration in the government's domestic spying program, which has violated the law and damaged the fundamental freedoms of the American public. The lawsuit request an injunction and damages under the statute. The laws provide that the victims can receive damages of at least $21,000 for each affected person."
That should wake up a few plutocrats.
Also, "... AT&T is acting as the government's agent in the government's violation of the Bill of Rights. Accordingly, the lawsuit makes Constitutional claims in addition to alleging that AT&T violated the wiretap and telecommunications laws."
lastnamechosen: I am not trolling. This is what upsets me. The continuous insistence on the part of some that all the present "conservatives" on the Supreme Court will continue to interpret the Constitution in such a way as to uphold long established Constitutional rights (such as the right to habeas corpus) of individual Americans as opposed to giving the Executive Branch broad new powers which conflict with those rights is dangerous in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteIt's possible to read certain good prior decisions by the "conservatives" and point to those to predict how they will rule in the future but to do that, one has to ignore a large number of recent warning signals that contradict that supposition.
Why do those who insist the SC Conservatives will deny the Executive Branch powers that most of us would object to not at least acknowledge that
there are good reasons to believe that may not be the case?
But they never do. That undermines seriously, in my opinion, the efforts of those who want to make sure by a variety of means that some basic liberties are not dispensed with because of the new concept of "perpetual war" which apparently has been signed on to by those same Conservatives.
To put it more clearly, the Constitution provides for certain broad powers of the Executive as CIC in "wartime" and lesser powers in times of peace.
Now we have a situation where there will never be a time of "peace", so the question boils down to are the conservatives on the Court willing to do away forever with those distinctions and give all the "wartime powers" to the President for perpetuity?
I submit that Scalia's statements in Sweden were highly suggestive of how he intends to rule in a large battery of cases to do with these issues which may come before the SC in the next ten or fifteen years.
I personally think Alito will go along with Scalia in those cases.
With reference to Scalia's statements in Sweden, please tell me, if you do, why you think that being a person living in a country deemed an enemy who is captured by someone who sells you as bounty to officials from another country is similar to being an enemy combatant on a battlefield during an actual war?
Scalia clearly fails to make any distinction between the two in his recent comments.
Is this a fatal flaw or not? If so, why would this person be someone expected to take a correct position in any of these type of cases, as hypatia and jao still insist he will?
But to keep an open mind, I would like to actually hear what jao and hypatia think of Scalia's statements in Sweden, because since they did not condemn them (or if they did, I missed that), I assumed they had no problem with those statements.
And finally, I cannot even relate to this concept of "he was only doing such and such because that was his job".
Either you approve of what he "did" or you don't. How could you not approve it but then excuse it because it was someone's "job"?
What does an unprincipled careerist have to do with morality or justice?
I think it's actually more charitable to just concede the person took actions he did because he believed them, rather than to conclude he sold out his beliefs because he wanted to advance his career. Don't you?
I am going to accept your criticism for using the term "Tokyko Rose" because I realize that although I use that term quasi humorously as is my style, that may not be at all obvious to anyone who does not personally know me.
So I'll be serious here. What I meant is that I think when a person's words and actions serve to undermine the possibility of accomplishing a critically essential moral goal by hoeing to a certain narrow view which fails to take into account all the relevant facts, they are intentionally or unintentionally working against that goal rather than trying to help effectuate it.
I started out as a Scalia and Thomas supporter too. But it is so clear to me now that the danger of a wrong decision in cases to do with affirmative action and certain other social programs with which I do not agree is miniscule compared to the larger dangers which now face this country.
I have come to actually dread the conservative Justices' decisions in the cases I consider most important to our continued existence as a nation built on moral premises.
Maybe they will indeed "come through" but I hardly think the evidence is there that that is more likely than not.
lastnamechosen: one more thing. There is a provision in the new Patriot Act which provides that, under the supervision of the Department of Homeland Security, "There is hereby created and established a permanent police force, to be known as the 'United States Secret Service Uniformed Division.'" who are
ReplyDeleteempowered to "make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony."
Paul Craig Roberts writes that in his opinion these new federal police powers give them the right to violate the Bill of Rights and goes on to state that
The language conveys enormous discretionary and arbitrary powers. What is "an offense against the United States"? What are "reasonable grounds"?
You can bet the Alito/Roberts court will rule that it is whatever the executive branch says.
Do you agree with his assessment?
Do jao and hypatia think he is right about what the "Alito/Roberts" court will rule?
If so, will they agree with that ruling?
The case of the two senators who submitted an amicus brief in the Hamdan case before SCOTUS drew some attention here. The brief suggests a floor debate about the Patriot Act that did not occur.
ReplyDeleteNow Mojo Blog says that the evidence was written by the WH:
In a legal brief written for the U.S. Supreme Court, Bush cited evidence from a debate by two Republican senators. There was no such debate. The evidence was manufactured by the White House.
Does anyone know whether this is true? Is Mojo conflating events here?
Does anyone know whether this is true? Is Mojo conflating events here?
ReplyDeleteYou're deep in the weeds of the fever swamp here.
Save yourself before it's too late.
cynic librarian asks: Does anyone know whether this is true? Is Mojo conflating events here?
ReplyDeleteWhen this story broke I followed multiple links, and it appears to be true. Several GOP senators apparently faked a debate that was depicted as having taken place on the Senate floor. The remarks were actually written and submitted to the Congressional Record as if they had taken place live orally, in order to manufacture some "legislative history" supportive of the Bush DoJ's legal position.
If the SCOTUS so finds -- and this apparent fraud has been brought to its attention -- it will not be amused and you can expect some serious spanking from that Court.
hypatia: That information is well-known. What the Mojo posting does is to go one step further, ie, that the WH colluded in the manufacturing of the fake debate.
ReplyDeletecynic librarian: For multiple reasons, I think it highly likely the Bush Admin did collude. But I can't prove it, though the SCOTUS may well demand some explanations; we'll see how well those hold up.
ReplyDeletecynic librarian is referencing the following item from mojo:
ReplyDeleteIn a legal brief written for the U.S. Supreme Court, Bush cited evidence from a debate by two Republican senators. There was no such debate. The evidence was manufactured by the White House.
Mojo claims this is an impeachable offense. Whoever mojo is, he gets it wrong on every count. To wit:
The "legal brief" was not written by the Bush administration. The brief in question was an amicus curiae submitted to the DC Court of Appeals in reference to a number of cases (lead case is Boumediene v. Bush, docket 05-5062). The DC Court rejected the brief without explanation. Here is the reference from scotusblog:
The D.C. Circuit Court, pondering the meaning of the court-stripping law passed late last year by Congress (the Detainee Treatment Act), has refused to accept three senators' attempts to help shape the ruling. In a brief order Thursday, containing no explanation, the Circuit Court refused to allow the three key sponsors of the new law to file amici briefs in two packets of detainee cases now pending there (the lead case is Boumediene v. Bush, docket 05-5062). No one opposed the filing of those briefs. No other amicus briefs were turned aside.
Please see the Scotusblog reference for further elaboration of this point. The blog entry time was 12:12.
Moreover, mojo's contention that this brief was "manufactured by the White House" is supported by no evidence whatsoever. It is simply a slanderous lie.
That is why I suggested that cynic librarian should get himself out of the fever swamp on this issue and move onto something else.
One other matter on this issue. The Senators involved in this little fiasco were Graham, Kyl, and Levin. That's Carl Levin, the senior senator from Michigan, a fellow no sane person can characterize as a friend of the Bush administration.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone here believe that Carl Levin was part of a White House conspiracy to "manufacture" a fake colloquy on the floor of the Senate?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who is interested can read about the fake Kyl/Graham floor debate as posted by Anon Lib at this site. Kyl and Graham submitted an amicus brief in the Hamdan case, and made use of the fake debate in support of their pro-administration arguments.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, I'd be surprised if the Bush DoJ was not collusive in - or at least aware of -- this fraud, and if the SCOTUS suspects so, the rebuke should be interesting.
You'll note that my comment was an interrogative. I asked whether there is any evidence for this suggestion by MoJo. Until I hear further, I am going with what I thought before all comments here: that the MoJo comment is a misundertsanding based on a poor reading of the data and therefore misinformation. I've already posted a remark to this effect on their website.
ReplyDeleteThanks to those who bothered--amicably or otherwise--to respond to my question.
"...a fellow no sane person can characterize as a friend of the Bush administration."
ReplyDeleteYou obviously do not understand how things work in the fever swamp. Mojo (rhymes with "whacko") is sounding a theme that resonates. We all know that evil folks conspire and do evil things, right? Bush is evil and conspires with Rove, right? And this is the KIND of thing they might do right?
Ergo. Like Rather's fake documents, this story is forged, but true. It is just like a conservative to focus on the small details instead of the huge story of malfeasance. Our government is riven with evil and you bring up hairs to split. It is just so difficult to get the facts out when Wingers troll in with pecksnifian quibbles over every little thing. [sarcasm/humor alert]
notherbob2: It is very likely that Sentors Kyl and Graham have committed a fraud upon the court. They manufactured "legislative history,"and included supposed questions and commentary from other Senators, such as Levin, that simply were not uttered, and submitted it all in a brief to the SCOTUS. Further,the Bush DoJ has made recourse to this fake colloquy in support of its legal arguments in Hamdan. To quote from SCOTUSblog, my emphasis:
ReplyDeleteBack and forth, Kyl and Graham discuss the new law, with continuing emphasis on their argument that the courts will lose jurisdiction over existing cases under the new bill. Along the way, they criticize the Supreme Court's 2004 decision in Rasul v. Bush, allowing the Guantanamo detainees to file challenges (but without specifying any relief). The new law, they stress, is intended to overturn Rasul. At one point, Kyl says: "The system of litigation that Rasul has wrought is unacceptable." Graham immediately says: "I agree entirely."
For eight pages, the colloquy continues. Other senators who also did not speak are quoted before final passage is noted.
Since then, the Graham-Kyl colloquy -- and Sen. Levin's comments, too -- have taken on a new life in the briefs filed in the Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit. When the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the Hamdan case under the detainee law, it cited the exchange and commented that "legislative history supports the conclusion that Congress was aware that the act's jurisdiction-ousting rule would extend to pending cases, including this case."
Again, expect some rebuke from the SCOTUS.
New filing in lawsuit against AT&T exposes the NSA operation:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.eff.org/news/
"It is very likely..."
ReplyDeleteHmmmm. Maybe I should remove the [sarcasm/humor alert] from my previous comment?
Why didn't you say you had "proof" of the commission of fraud? On with the hanging!
This is the perfect attack opportunity. If the SCOTUS doesn't scold them, just conflate a criticism of the SCOTUS for ... oh, I don't know ... surely they are guilty of something. Electing Bush, for one thing; perhaps you could tie that in.
I know the wheels of justice grind slowly, but the overhang of "crimes" the Bush Administration has been found guilty of in the left blogosphere, but nowhere else is getting extremely (pun intended) large.
I've read notherbob's claptrap with amusement, but not until now do I see how utterly disconnected he is from anything remotely resembling the real world. I see now that if someone came forth with actual photographs of Bush buggering little boys, and Bush himself came forward and said 'I love to bugger little boys," notherbob would make some really funny joke with lots of sarcasm and humor (which he would point out to us to make sure we all caught it) suggesting the "fever swamp" has sunk to new lows when it can manufacture actual "reality" where Bush admits wrongdoing. Then he'd go back to that tiny little world he inhabits where his shrine to Bush burns ever bright with the anointing oils of right-wing truth and cackle at the absurdity of the world outside where his God is roundly laughed at.
ReplyDeleteAre you referring to crimes that Bush, y'know, confessed to, 'bob'?
ReplyDeleteQuestion to notherbob:
ReplyDeleteDo you even follow the actual news? What is confusing you here? Kyl and Graham pretend that something happened that didn't, submitted it as evidence and hoped nobody would notice. Did they act on their own, or did the WH have something to do with it? Thats where the story is as of now. Do you have a hard time following events in real time, or just ones that challenge your fragile world view?
Yes, notherbob2, I know that you and anon/Gedaliya think it is just some fevered conspiracy of the left, all the criticism of the radical, extreme and lawless behavior of the Bush Administration. You seem to have overlooked that I’m not a leftist, JaO isn’t, and I don’t read Greenwald to be one, either. Moreover, Bush has been very sternly rebuked from a federal judge with the most impeccable of conservative credentials, Michael Luttig, for the shell game it has been playing with the courts. My excerpt from a very long SCOTUSblog post, my emphasis:
ReplyDeleteThe language used in [Luttig’s] opinion -- reflecting a studied attempt to be temperate, yet coming out as tellingly sharp-edged -- could only be interpreted as the sternest of judicial rebukes on issues of fundamental importance to President Bush's war against global terrorism. The ruling was doubly effective because it was written by Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig, who has been considered by President Bush as a potential nominee to the Supreme Court and who is one of the most conservative federal appellate judges in the nation….There was no mistaking the pique of the Fourth Circuit at the government's maneuvering in that court, and in its series of switched positions on Padilla.
Judge Luttig said the panel "cannot help but believe" that the government had underestimated the consequences of its differing treatment of Padilla in recent weeks…. The government's actions, the opinion said, "have left not only the impression that Padilla may have been held for these years, even if justifiably, by mistake -- an impression we would have thought the government could ill afford to leave extant."
Moreover, Luttig wrote, those actions "have left the impression that the government may even have come to the belief that the principle in reliance upon which it has detained Padilla for this time, that the President possesses the authority to detain enemy combatants who enter into this country for the purpose of attacking America and its citizens from within, can, in the end, yield to expedience with little or not cost to its conduct of the war against terror -- an impression we would have thought the government likewise could ill afford to leave extant."
"These impressions have been left, we fear, at what may ultimately prove to be substantial cost to the government's credibility before the courts, to whom it will one day need to argue again in support of a principle of assertedly like importance and necessity to the one that it seems to abandon today. While there could be an objective that could command such a price as all of this, it is difficult to imagine what that objective would be."
That, notherbob2, is called a smackdown -- from the right. The Bush DoJ felt it was so critical to keep its legal arguments from being ruled on by the High Court, that it engaged in behavior earning that smackdown. Why do you suppose that is? What do you think it means about the Adminstration’s confidence in its theories of limitless Executive power?
Glenn,
ReplyDeletedo I recall need of a flier..?
could a look at this -
http://www.consumerist.com/consumer/top/orwellian-in-implication-callcenter-recording-system-pitch-letter-intercepted-165247.php
- oblige. Transparently it would appear a new resource from which profitmaking is possible.. digital resources banks.. resources = information. Folks, telephone, mobile users.. us.. you.. me.. mostly unsuspecting.. hence a surveillence tool.. but legit.. who says so.. and how..???
keep up the good work
But isn't it true, Hypatia, that the "smackdown" was summarily Smacked Down by SCOTUS on January 4, 2006, and (as I hope everyone is aware here), Padilla's cert application was similarly rejected this week by the court with a resounding 6-3 ruling?
ReplyDeleteDoesn't that to a great degree prove that Luttig's outburst was, to say the least, premature?
Turns out they have a retired AT&T technician willing to testify in that EFF case mentioned above. The claim is that ATT makes all their internet traffic available wholesale to the NSA.
ReplyDeleteBTW the case is handled by one Vaughn Walker who was nominated to that court by his cousin George (Panama) Bush in 1989 . Small world, isn't it?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteBut isn't it true, Hypatia, that the "smackdown" was summarily Smacked Down by SCOTUS on January 4, 2006,
ReplyDeleteNo, and if you think that, you do not understand the law. If anything, the extremely peculiar issuing of an opinion in a cert denial, and stressing that it is a denial merely for now, but leaving open the possibility of Padilla being allowed to revive his claim if the DoJ continues to play games with his status, shows how very concerened the SCOTUS is. I don't recall anything like that ever happening before.
All the reasons for whihc Luttig correctly smacked the DoJ, are the same reasons for that odd SCOTUS semi-denial of cert, with accompanying opinion.
No...
ReplyDeleteThe January 4th SCOTUS ruling I referenced above reversed the 4th Circuit ruling denying the "Application Respecting the Custody and Transfer of Jose Padilla" in which Luttig was so lusty in his indignation at the administration. That is what I meant by the smackdown being smacked-down.
The SCOTUS later denial of Padilla's cert application, the ruling you deem "extremely peculiar," is something else altogether, and not related to my remark.
eyes wide open,
ReplyDeleteThis is not the time or place for this, but since I am unsure of your intentions I will not let this go unchallenged.
"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is considered by most to be a very poorly written anti-semitic screed. If you were unaware of this, consider that I am doing you a very large favor. If you were aware, and statements from your original post and your subsequent refusal to address this point, suggest that you are, then I have questions.
- Is your attempt to find like minded people here?
- Were you hoping for a nibble in order to discredit certain posters here?
- Were you hoping for a nibble in order to discredit Glenn and his website?
There is an interesting paragraph from a post in this thread that I hope you will read in context of what I just said.
So I'll be serious here. What I meant is that I think when a person's words and actions serve to undermine the possibility of accomplishing a critically essential moral goal by hoeing to a certain narrow view which fails to take into account all the relevant facts, they are intentionally or unintentionally working against that goal rather than trying to help effectuate it.
Sen.Tom Harkin:
ReplyDeleteThe democrats don’t have the guts to stand up to censure a president who misled us, who lied to the American people, who broke the law and violated the Constitution of the United States in spying on the American people. I tell you, we’ve got to get some more backbone to a lot of democrats. We need to hear from people. We need to hear from people. The American people need to know, and to show support for this resolution.
With the recent revelation that Bush allowed the leaking of national security information to the press, Steve Clemons (a noted reporter with uber-insider contacts) thinks that Feingold's censure resolution has rceived a shot in the arm.
ReplyDeleteHot off the presses:
ReplyDeleteFrom MSNBC:
Gonzales also would not discount that the president could order the NSA to listen in on purely domestic calls without first obtaining a warrant from a secret court established nearly 30 years ago to consider such issues.
He said the administration, assuming the conversation related to al-Qaida, would have to determine if the surveillance were crucial to the nation’s fight against terrorism, as authorized by Congress following the Sept. 11 attacks. “I’m not going to rule it out,” Gonzales said.
There you have it, folks. HWSNBN can go stuff himself.
Cheers,
arne langsetmo:
ReplyDeleteBeat me to it by just a couple of minutes.
I'd point out another extremely tasty tidbit from that article:
---
The attorney general acknowledged that there had been disagreement about the monitoring inside the administration. But he took issue with published reports that detailed some of those disputes.
“They did not relate to the program the president disclosed,” he said. “They related to something else and I can’t get into that.”
---
Now what are the odds anybody in Congress will actually demand to know what that "something else" is?
The SCOTUS later denial of Padilla's cert application, the ruling you deem "extremely peculiar," is something else altogether, and not related to my remark.
ReplyDeleteActually, it is integrally related to it. Padilla was concerned that if his transfer occurred, it would moot his SCOTUS appeal and he would coninue in legal limbo at the (lack of)mercy of the federal govt. The SCOTUS' 1/04 ruling permitted the transfer, but then in its subsequent, semi-denial of cert, ensured that if the govt did continue to play the games Luttig was describing , it would revive the appeal, which therefore is not moot.
Luttig did not anticipate such a novel SCOTUS "holding," (nor did anyone else, to my knowledge) and it essentially provides the safety for Mr. Padilla -- in the face of the manifest bad faith of the federal government Luttig deplored -- that Luttig was seeking to ensure.
Again, that novel holding is driven by all the same reasons for Luttig's smackdown. JaO is quite the wordsmith and puts it best:
Whereas Luttig rebuked the DOJ's tactics in Padilla's case with a mailed fist, I think the opinion of Kennedy, Roberts and Stevens was both a putdown and a warning delivered with velvet gloves.
I’m not so sure if the censure proposal will get much of a boost, but it does bode well for the NSA issue.
ReplyDeleteAs moderate Joe Gandlemansays, “This administration does not just have a credibility problem, it has a credibility catastrophe.
And Digby shows why
So we find out today that Bush personally authorized leaking sensitive intelligence information for political reasons.
Explain to me again how we can trust that this President has not used his illegal NSA program to wiretap Americans for political reasons?
Explain to me again why we should believe that his Justice Department investigation into the leak of his illegal NSA wiretapping program to the NY Times is not for political reasons?
When you read all of Bush’s statements about wanting to get to the bottom of these leaks, there is no reason to trust this man even if he tells you the sky is blue. More and more people will start asking why we should trust him when he says he’s only spying on terrorists and not for political purposes.
zack: I’m not so sure if the censure proposal will get much of a boost, but it does bode well for the NSA issue.
ReplyDeleteNote the wording in the following extract from the NYSun article (quoted by RAWSTORY): "The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule. However, the new disclosure could be awkward for the president because it places him, for the first time, directly in a chain of events that led to a meeting where prosecutors contend the identity of a CIA employee, Valerie Plame, was provided to a reporter."
So, the fantasy goes haywire. I imagine many Reps and complict Dems are running for their lives so they don't get twanged by the ensuing chaos.
Jan Rooth:
ReplyDelete“They did not relate to the program the president disclosed,” he said. “They related to something else and I can’t get into that.”
---
Now what are the odds anybody in Congress will actually demand to know what that "something else" is?
And what are the odds that "Abu" Gonzales will tell them to go stuff themselves? Now, for a more conjectural question, what are the odds that Sensenbrenner won't roll up into a ball and die after the maladministration calls in its attack digs and thugs, and instead decides to confront the maladministration on their continued stonewalling? Time will tell ... and will indicate whether the Republican party has in fact become the Borg, or whether there's still a few there that are willing to place country and principle before politics in an election year.
Cheers,
"The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule
ReplyDeleteRemember Bush-worshippers were first saying that there was no crime because everybody knew Plame was undercover at the CIA. I think it was Cliff May who said Wilson even introduced his wife at parties that way. So there was no crime.
Now there are saying if the President authorizes it, it’s automatically declassified, so no crime has been committed once again. (“If the President does it, it’s not illegal.” Ah, yes, George Milhouse Bush comes through again. I can’t wait for his “I am not a crook” speech.
Oh, and I’m sure our trolls will soon arrive spouting something like this:
So in the MSM, the liberals' false leaks are noble, while the administration's declassification of the report that shows them to be false, in response, is a scandal!
Yup, still all the media’s fault – just like Iraq which is going just splendidly by the way. Bush had no choice but to declassify Plame’s identity to counter those false nasty stories written by that despicable Joe Wilson. Jeebus, they just don’t stop do they?
"You obviously have no intent to add anything constructive or even meaningful."
ReplyDeleteMy primary goal is to be truthful. Unfortunately, anyone who does so these days, (because of the vendetta of the left against President Bush) inevitably sounds like a Bush supporter. Despite the left wing noise machine [AHA! cry idiots. “I know all I need to know about this person, any facts he may point out, any opinions he may have and which party he votes for.” Just because I have the temerity to use a common phrase for its obvious meaning.] I am not aware of any crime that President Bush has been found guilty of. Nor any that he is under indictment for.
Therefore, it seems appropriate for me to point out to those calling him a criminal that they are mistaken. I think that is productive and meaningful.
Presumably, those to whom I direct my comments actually wish to accomplish that which they say they intend to accomplish. If reasonable people consider them blithering idiots as a result of their having spent too much time in the cocoon reading whackos, then only whackos will pay them any mind.
They say they wish to influence others. If that is true, then they need to maintain a better connection with the truth.
What is accepted as truth by many on this blog ...
Well, lastnamechosen said it above:
”...when a person's words and actions serve to undermine the possibility of accomplishing a ... goal by hoeing(sic) to a certain narrow view [my emphasis:] which fails to take into account all the relevant facts, they are intentionally or unintentionally working against that goal rather than trying to help effectuate it.“ 3:41 PM
Long Sunday reports:
ReplyDelete"Worthy of Stalin"
The keeping-secret of Cheney's warrantless wiretaps, that is, according to Bruce Ackerman right now on The Diane Rehm Show. Ackerman is a constitutional scholar whose thought experiment engages what might happen after the next attack.
Has anyone acquired the transcript of this interview with Ackerman?
Yo,
ReplyDeleteMy post on the NSA standing issue from March 24, "Illegal, Unconstitutional NSA Searches: Is There Now a Plaintiff with Standing?" can be found at http://blogbrief.blogspot.com/2006/03/illegal-unconstitutional-nsa-searches.html
notherbob2,
ReplyDeleteI hate to impugn your research skillz but you are quoting "eyes wide open", not me.
Shorter notherbob2:
ReplyDeleteI do not know if a crime was committed, therefore no crime was committed.
And I am so happy to see all the regulars with so much competence focusing in on the irregularities that need to be rectified.
ReplyDeleteStrength to your sword-arm, everyone!
From notherbob2 at 5:48PM:
ReplyDelete"I am not aware of any crime that President Bush has been found guilty of. Nor any that he is under indictment for.
Therefore, it seems appropriate for me to point out to those calling him a criminal that they are mistaken. I think that is productive and meaningful."
Much as I hate to admit this, the above comment has a point. In a purely legal sense, President Bush is not a convicted criminal nor is he under threat of indictment; calling or referring to him as such is a bit of rhetorical overreach.
Is that necessarily relevant, however, to either the underlying issue or circumstances? Not in my estimation.
Look, there is no question the President and his Administration have deliberately initiated a surveillance program that they themselves have admitted fell under the provisions of FISA, the statute itself going ignored by the Administration. By any objective, common sense interpretation, this constitutes law-breaking.
The various side-issues - whether FISA is or is not unconstitutional, whether the President has the 'inherent authority' to simply ignore its provisions and initiate this program, and whether this program was targeted against purely 'foreign' targets or if US citizens were likewise targeted - while relevant, don't change the underlying fact:
The President knowingly and deliberately ignored a US Statute, authorizing a surveillance program whose scope and targets have not been fully revealed but which legally fell under the aforementioned statute; by ignoring the statute's provisions concerning the need for judicial warrants and oversight, the President has BROKEN THE LAW.
Whatever his motives, whatever his justifications, THE PRESIDENT BROKE THE LAW.
He may never be charged with an actual crime, impeached, and prosecuted for this, but nevertheless THE PRESIDENT BROKE THE LAW.
Can somebody here please tell me what, precisely, is so bloody difficult to understand about that?
lastnamechosen: I understand exactly what you are saying to me. You say it because I have obviously failed to be articulate and make my point about the "Protocols."
ReplyDeleteI am going to go back and read it again and then write more about the point I am making using actual quotes from the document itself.
But here, let me try just once again to make my own point, which actually has nothing at all to do with any of the points made by anyone else who has ever written about that particular document.
BTW, I know full well that the Protocols are held in contempt by practically everyone and I know why they are held in contempt.
But because the entire focus has been on proving that the dissertation was not in fact written by Jews (a thesis with which I emphatically agree) and exposing those who claim it is as anti-semites with an agenda, nobody serious (or if anyone has I am not aware of it) has ever focused on the content alone of the document.
The world has come to entirely discard the document because of the understandable furor which surrounds the various attempts by this group or that group to use the document for a variety of evil purposes. Maybe it's not even possible to step outside that furor and maybe that is what you are saying.
A few years ago I happened to see mention of the document and decided to actually read it myself to see what had led to such much bitter controversy. Knowing it was a discredited document, I didn't read it from a perspective of trying to figure out who wrote it or what were their real reasons for doing so but rather out of simple intellectual curiosity.
I also did not read it because I expected it to be a document written in an exemplary literary style, although I note with some bemusement that for some reason people who discredit it often mention that it is poorly written which would seem to be to be a minor point to keep bringing up in light of all the other controveries surrounding the document.
So that is clear right? I do not think "Protocols" was written by the Elders of Zion, whoever they are, and I do not think it reflects the ideas of any particular ethnic or religious group.
I wish it didn't have a name, or a history, and was a work, say, of science fiction so I could say "that particular episode of Star Wars is very fascinating because"........and go on to say what I find most fascinating about it but apparently I can't do so because I am stepping into someone else's war and it is such a heated war that nobody cares about the words on a page and what those words themselves are saying.
So, I will go back and read it and maybe next time I write about it I won't mention what I am writing about but will just list the ideas in that document which I find darkly fascinating and the reason I find them to be profoundly descriptive of the methodology used by humans who seek to gain and retain power by controlling other human beings as opposed to those humans who choose to think, to invent, to produce, and to create.
That's all.
I would like to be able to be a free thinker and not get dragged into the warfare of groups who are prejudiced against each other which is not my war because I am not a member of any "group" nor am I adversarial to any group other than those associations of individuals who are bound solely by joint adherence to practices and ideas which I find immoral.
I prefer the battle of ideas and the battles of individuals who have warring ideas.
eyes wide open,
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for your reply.
you said...
"BTW, I know full well that the Protocols are held in contempt by practically everyone and I know why they are held in contempt."
"The world has come to entirely discard the document because of the understandable furor which surrounds the various attempts by this group or that group to use the document for a variety of evil purposes. Maybe it's not even possible to step outside that furor and maybe that is what you are saying."
It has been obvious to me that one point the administration plans on bringing out the anti-semitism card. Here is a little taste of what is right around the corner. Not only is it not possible to step outside that furor, but intentionally or not you are working directly for the people who will use this idea to protect the president and the status quo.
"So, I will go back and read it and maybe next time I write about it I won't mention what I am writing about but will just list the ideas in that document which I find darkly fascinating and the reason I find them to be profoundly descriptive of the methodology used by humans who seek to gain and retain power by controlling other human beings as opposed to those humans who choose to think, to invent, to produce, and to create."
I am not asking you to quote the "protocols" in hidden metaphor or diluted language. I do not believe you are anti-semitic, I just believe you are completely tone deaf and have zero concept of what is appropriate dinner conversation in a given social situation. Let me be clear, if you think a scholarly, "free thinking" dissection of the "protocols" is the most important task we face and that this is the appropriate time and forum, then you are fucking nuts.
"I would like to be able to be a free thinker and not get dragged into the warfare of groups who are prejudiced against each other which is not my war because I am not a member of any "group" nor am I adversarial to any group other than those associations of individuals who are bound solely by joint adherence to practices and ideas which I find immoral.
I prefer the battle of ideas and the battles of individuals who have warring ideas."
Excellent thoughts and I agree completely. You must understand that attempting to discuss the "protocols" guarantees that you will "get dragged into the warfare of groups who are prejudiced against each other...", this is just reality. In the process you will be painting a very large target on the back of this forum and by extension Glenn's website. See an of how this works.
Tag close. God blogger sucks. Six perfect previews and it still mangles html.
ReplyDeleteLastnamechosen: Uh oh. I don't understand what you are saying. I went to the first link you put up but I didn't understand why you put up that link and I didn't understand what on that site was evidence of the thing you say the administration is going to do about anti-semites.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you could explain that a little more. Are you saying the Administration is going to accuse people of being anti-semitic, or that the Administration is anti-semitic?
Or are you saying that people accuse Joseph Wilson of being anti-semitic in an effort to discredit him, or are you saying that Joseph Wilson is anti-semetic because he made those comments about Ken Mehlman who I assume is Jewish because why else would people say Joseph Wilson is anti-semitic in mentioning his name?
Do you really think most people who aren't involved in political matters usually know who is Jewish, Christian or whatever unless that person comes out and says it like Pat Robertson, etc.
When I was talking about that particular book, I was talking about things like the way in which the media can act as an agent of government to distract the people with mindless "entertainment" so the masses don't pay attention to what government is doing because they are happy being "entertained" with the drivel which draws them in and once there they are bombarded by the government's propaganda messages. Things like that. I believe we have all seen that is exactly what has happened during the last ten years in this country.
However, since I think you sound intelligent and even though I do not like it when you call me "fucking nuts" because what have I done that is wrong, I will never mention that book or any reference to it again on this site or anyplace if you think doing so does some kind of damage to the causes in which Glenn believes as I believe in those exact same causes.
So I will take your word that there is something about mentioning that book that does damage even if the person who mentions it is the least bigoted person in the world as I am.
But when this is all over and there is a happy ending for which I am still hoping and the country returns to normal, I hope good-hearted people will be able to talk about anything which interests them and nobody will suspect them of being up to evil ends.
OK?
PS. Someone on that site you directed me to said something about not being able to talk about neo-cons because people who talk about neo-cons are anti-semites.
Can we talk about neo-cons? I really cannot understand how talking about neo-cons could be seen as anti-semitic, since neo-cons are Christians, Jews, secular people (what is Frank Fukuyama?)
and seem to be drawn from every possible ethnic group and religion or agnostic or atheistic persuasion extant.
Anyway, whoever the neo-cons are I don't like them because of what they have done to this country and all the blood they have shed and people they have tortured and all the suffering they have caused and all the people whose lives they have tragically ruined.
You agree with that, don't you?
eyes wide open,
ReplyDeleteI do not buy your feigned ignorance for even one second. Anyone sophisticated enough to use the term "Tokyo Rose" as an insult could not possibly be this oblivious. You seem intelligent and capable of subtlety when you have your claws out but revert to a childlike innocence when back on your heels.
I am also surprised you haven't seen TM's justoneminute blog before. You seem to scour the internet for information and it is on Glenn's list of "Blogs I read." I guess you really aren't keeping up with the Plame affair.
I do not want you to "take my word" for anything. I am not here to censor you or tell you how to conduct your life. If I happen to give you information that you independently verify and then integrate into your belief system, so be it, but I am not here to tell you what to believe. Your actions should be a direct result of your beliefs, not my words.
I have inserted my testimony on this issue into the record and I am done. You may now return to pretending you don't know how to create a link.