(cross-posted at The Huffington Post)
In order to generate further support for the Feingold Censure Resolution, numerous bloggers are encouraging everyone to pay an actual physical visit to their Senators' local offices in order to urge support for censure. Anyone doing so is likely to encounter the two primary myths/excuses which have been concocted by Senators and others in order to justify their refusal to support the Resolution. They are both plainly false:
MYTH/EXCUSE NUMBER ONE: An investigation is needed before it can be known whether the President broke the law.
This has become the favored weapon of evasion for most Democratic Senators. Most who have refused to take a position on the Feingold Resolution have used the excuse that there has to be a full investigation before they can know if censure is appropriate. We have heard this excuse from, among many others, Senators Salazar, Stabenow, Bingaman, Levin and Dodd. That is just a small sampling of the list of Democrats who have claimed not to be able to take a position on the Feingold Resolution until an "investigation" is conducted.
Bush supporters have also been peddling this same myth. In his angry and rather uncontrolled rant this weekend on Chris Wallace's show, Brit Hume proclaimed that it was somehow outrageous for Senators such as Feingold and Tom Harkin to attack the illegality of Bush's warrantless eavesdropping when they "have not even been briefed on the program" -- as though we do not yet know enough about the program in order to determine whether it is illegal.
This excuse for not taking a position on censure is not only false, but also outright illogical on its face. There are two distinct and independent issues raised by the NSA scandal:
ISSUE 1: Did the President break the law when he ordered warrantless eavesdropping on Americans?
ISSUE 2: What was the scope and extent of the President's secret eavesdropping? Did the warrantless eavesdropping include only international calls, as he claims, or purely domestic calls as well? Were only suspected Al Qaeda members eavesdropped, on as he claims, or did the eavesdropping extend beyond that? How was it determined who would be eavesdropped on? And what was done with the information?
These issues are separate and distinct. Issue 1 is what Feingold's Censure Resolution concerns. It is the "Illegality Question," i.e., whether the President broke the law when ordering warrantless eavesdropping on Americans. Issue 2 is the "Abuse Question," i.e., whether the President abused the eavesdropping powers he secretly exercised in violation of the law by, for instance, eavesdropping on Americans who have nothing to do with Al Qaeda or eavesdropping beyond the scope what he has claimed.
It is unquestionably true that an investigation is needed - urgently needed - in order to learn the answers to the questions relating to Issue 2. We do not know the scope and extent of the President's warrantless eavesdropping precisely because he eavesdropped in secret in violation of the law, rather than with judicial oversight. That is why it is so inexcusable that all of the Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee voted against Sen. Rockefeller's motion to conduct an investigation to find out the answers to these questions.
But in stark contrast to Issue 2, all the facts necessary to know the answer to Issue 1 are already disclosed, are publicly available, and have been admitted by the Administration. Therefore, while an investigation into Issue 2 is imperative, all of the facts relevant to the question of whether the President broke the law (the only issue raised by the Feingold Resolution) are already known, and for that reason it is illogical to claim that an investigation is needed before that question can be answered. Put simply, we don't know the scope and extent of the President's illegal eavesdropping, but we do know that the eavesdropping he ordered was illegal.
Under FISA, it is a criminal offense to eavesdrop on Americans without the oversight and approval of the FISA court. Section 1809 of FISA expressly provides that "[a] person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally - (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute. . . ." And Section 2511(2)(f) provides that FISA "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . may be conducted." Thus, a person has broken the law if -- as the President admits he did -- he orders eavesdropping on Americans without complying with the warrant requirements of the statute. Period.
The Administration admits that it did just that -- that the President ordered exactly the warrantless eavesdropping which FISA makes it a criminal offense to engage in. The Administration does not deny this fact. They admit that the eavesdropping they engaged in is exactly the eavesdropping for which FISA requires judicial approval, but defend themselves only by claiming that they had the legal right to engage in this eavesdropping without complying with the law. Here is Alberto Gonzales making this precise admission at his December 19, 2005 press briefing with Gen. Hayden:
Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides -- requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and the President announced on Saturday, unless there is somehow -- there is -- unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires.
That is Gonzales admitting that the warrantless eavesdropping they engaged in is the type for which FISA requires judicial approval. By definition, there is no investigation needed to determine whether the Administration engaged in warrantless eavesdropping prohibited by FISA because that fact is not in dispute.
In defending itself, the Administration is offering only legal arguments -- not factual disputes -- as to why it had the right to eavesdrop without complying with the law (namely, that the President has inherent authority to eavesdrop even if the law prohibits it, and that Congress gave him implicit permission to eavesdropping outside of FISA when it enacted the AUMF). But the Administration is not denying -- and has never denied -- the fact that it engaged in the very warrantless eavesdropping covered by FISA.
Thus, no investigation could even conceivably shed further light on the question of whether the President broke the law. We know he did that. The sole question which Senators have to answer is what they think the consequences ought to be, if any, for a President to order eavesdropping on Americans citizens which Americans, through their Congress, prohibited by law.
An investigation cannot answer the question as to whether U.S. Senators ought to take a stand against deliberate and ongoing lawbreaking by a President. Only U.S. Senators can answer that question, and they already have all the facts that are relevant to that question already before them. Claiming that they need further "investigation" before taking a position is nothing short of an abdication of their responsibilities, an obvious tactic for avoiding the question of whether they oppose lawbreaking by the President.
MYTH/EXCUSE NUMBER TWO: Republicans want this scandal to persist because it benefits them politically.
Ever since this scandal emerged, Republicans have been wallowing in the bravado of claiming that they "welcome" this scandal because it will benefit them politically, and they continue to engage in this chest-beating in the hopes that Democrats will be intimidated into walking away meekly from the President's law-breaking. Just yesterday, National Review's Senior Editor Ramesh Ponnuru boasted that Republicans were "delighted" by the Censure Resolution, and Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds gleefully linked to that item and smugly added: "Delight is pretty much all that I've observed." Many Democrats actually seem to be shaken by this sort of cheap and transparent self-defensive bluffing.
The conduct of Bush supporters from the very beginning of this scandal, as well as an unbroken string of public opinion polls, reveal just how false and baseless that pretense is. While boastfully claiming that they "welcomed" an open and full discussion of the NSA scandal, the Republicans have worked feverishly to kill off every proposed Congressional investigation and to sweep this scandal as quickly as possible under the rug, never to be heard from again.
They furiously lobbied Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee to vote against an investigation into this program. They have been working endlessly to forge an agreement with Congress to render their program legal in order to stave off the investigation by the Senate Judiciary Committee. And after Sen. Feingold introduced his Censure Resolution on Sunday morning, Sen. Frist was on the Senate floor less than 24 hours later trying to force an immediate vote, before anyone could even read the Resolution, let alone debate the proper remedy for the President's law-breaking. In sum, while claiming that they will reap great political benefits from this scandal, they have done everything possible to conceal the President's actions, block investigations, and prevent a public debate on these matters.
Those are most assuredly not the actions of a political party which wants to keep this issue in the spotlight. It the opposite - frenzied and desperate attempts to conceal what the President did and to prevent any attention from being paid to this scandal. As I have noted many times, public opinion polls have repeatedly shown that pluralities of the public believe that the President broke the law and majorities oppose eavesdropping on American citizens without warrants. Basic logic dictates that, for Republicans, there is nothing to be gained -- and much to be lost -- from a scandal based upon the deliberate and repeated law-breaking by a highly unpopular President, all in order to spy on Americans in secret rather than with the judicial oversight required by law.
It is critical that Democrats recognize that we are not in 2003 anymore. George Bush is a wildly unpopular President whom the public neither likes nor trusts. The public overwhelmingly believes that the President deliberately made false statements to induce the nation into war and that he cannot be trusted. It is nothing short of transparent delusion to suggest that Americans -- outside of the dwindling number of blindly loyal Bush followers -- will somehow be offended by Democrats objecting to Bush's violations of the law, or by demanding that he not eavesdrop on American citizens in secret, just as the law, for 30 years, has prohibited.
Bush followers continuously try to perpetrate the myth that Bush is a beloved President who enjoys support from most Americans, and therefore Democrats should be afraid to stand up to him, especially on issues of national security. Just yesterday, Glenn Reynolds -- whose blog always features the most up-to-date display of false pro-Bush talking points -- wrote a post defending the plainly false, triumphant statements he made back in April, 2003 about the Iraq War and, in doing so, he spit out this bit of revealing delusion:
I had actually planned not to rub this in -- the "antiwar" movement has shrunk to such a pitiful remnant of its not terribly impressive former self that it hardly seems worth it.
Polls show that the vast majority of the country oppose the war in Iraq and believe it was a mistake. The percentage of Americans who are anti-war has steadily and rapidly increased and continues to rise. But in the starkly delusional and propagandizing mind of the Bush follower, President Bush's war policies enjoy the support of an overwhelming proportion of Americans and only a few enclaves of crazed, marginalized radicals oppose him. Many Democratic Senators -- beaten around for several years after 9/11 by Bush's now-dead popularity -- also seem to have these false premises still engrained within them.
But all of that is just myth, pure delusion. The increasingly marginalized and radical views are those of Bush followers, not Bush opponents. The ethos of the country has changed not just on the margins, but fundamentally. It may be the case that in 2003, there was a rational argument to make that political calculations militated against standing up to the President's law-breaking. The fantasies of Bush followers notwithstanding, it is not 2003 anymore. It is long past time for Democrats to stand up to and firmly oppose the most radical elements of this Administration. And there are few elements more radical than the President's deliberate decision to break the law. |
140 Comments:
Great post, as usual, Glenn. You are rapidly becoming the authority on this issue in my opinion.
But more than just the knowledge you are bringing to the table, you are doing it in such a concise and clear manner.
This is an MVP performance.
Oh, and thanks for singling out my Senators, Stabenow and Levin. I called them early on about this, clearly they need some nagging.
Ever since this scandal emerged, Republicans have been wallowing in the bravado of claiming that they "welcome" this scandal because it will benefit them politically, and they continue to engage in this chest-beating in the hopes that Democrats will be intimidated into walking away meekly from the President's law-breaking.
Well, to an extent, they actually do want this 'discussion' ... because they're hoping to "frame" the issues in the 'discussion' in a way favourable to them: to wit, they want to claim that the choices are the (fallacy of bifurcation) choices of "Don't listen to the Terra-ists" or "Let Dubya do what he thinks is best for us in winning the 'War on Terra'". Guarantee you, you'll see them pushing this meme in any such 'debate' on the issue. Of course, they think this persiflage will fly, but it does open them to the possibility that some Democrats with balls will call them on it, and actually be able to dispute this false assumption and perhaps get the opposing message out far more than the sorry maladministration suck-ups in the MSM are doing now....
Cheers,
Great post. Is there a wallet size version of this for folks who are calling/visiting/writing letters? Also, is anyone a keeping "scorecard" of the various Senators' responses (and what's up with those Congressmen)?
What they welcome is that will be played out in the court of "public opinion," in which they have complete control, rather than in a formal investigation where these questions would have to be answered. The Humes, Wallaces, Reynolds, et al. will hammer the message as long as they can get away with it. They're all banking on the fact that it will fizzle out, just as other scandals in this administration have due to apathy and fatigue. I think they may be wrong this time.
I certainly hope your right. But I have been amazed all along at what the public has been willing to beleive. In particular, the number of people who beleived that Saddam had any connection to 9-11 was always startling.
The ironic thing for Democrats is that their fear of looking weak is precisely what makes them look weak.
Take a stand for Cripes sake!
Glenn, I agree with you in principle on excuse #1, but let me argue that the Democratic Senators are beating a tactical retreat. (Or, perhaps more accurate to the actual chain of events, they have accidentally backed into a good tactical retreat.)
Soon Herr Rove will prevail upon Specter to kill the last gasps of investigation of any sort in Judiciary, but now under the bright lights of the well-known censure motion. At that point, it will be much easier for Democrats to hang "spying, lawbreaking, and cover-up" on the Republicans than it is now. I think it's less an evasion than a set-up.
Personally, I think it would have been better to go for the throat from the start, but the setup is not a disastrous backup plan. Even if we wish it could have been better, altogether this line of attack is good for the Democrats, and going to get better.
Arne Langsetmo's comment that "they're hoping to 'frame' the issues in the 'discussion' in a way favourable to them" is an essential addition to Glenn's observation that "they have done everything possible to conceal the President's actions, block investigations, and prevent a public debate on these matters."
A prime example of this tactic is Bush's well-schooled posturing in yesterday's press conference:
"They ought to stand up and say, The tools we're using to protect the American people shouldn't be used. They ought to take their message to the people and say, Vote for me. I promise we're not going to have a terrorist surveillance program. That's what they ought to be doing. That's part of what is an open and honest debate."
Everyone should support Feingold. It is a principled stance and completely justified. This idiot (Bush) did ignore existing law and bragged about doing so. He stated, in affect, he has no respect for Congress and won't recognise their authority.
Censure isn't a big deal. It isn't impeachment, which is called for, but a mere slap on the wrist to tell Bush he is an asshole and should be called on it.
great points, now I better see why chimpy himselft talks about "catapulting the propaganda" - the talking points from their side are so dishonest.
Remember: GREAT CRIMES REQUIRED MORE LIES AND CORRUPTION TO MAINTAIN THE ILLUSION THAT ALL IS WELL.
With hindsight, it is clear that any number of terrible things were going to happen after the theft of the 2000 election. They powers behind the chimperor did not pull that one off to represent the "will of the people".
When they got away with that crime, it was the start of a spree.
I think it's less an evasion than a set-up.
Hope you are right -- the different intellegent opinions on this board is what makes Glenn an intersting read.
I would have to see this unfold more to agree, Dems have caved on too many issue and given up too much ground on any number of key positions.
It will provide an alternative strategy, however, if the censure contintues to have minimal senate support.
When they kill or "whitewash" the investigation, we will need to be ready to create a lot of noise.
Thanks for the timely analysis, I was just in the midst of writing a letter to my dumbfounded local editor.
What the lemmings have not used as an argument that I've seen is that we are simply asking that the tools against the war on teror be used to their maximum effectiveness. That means following the law which was designed to give surveillance through the wiretapping not only the maximum mobility but the maximum ability to prosecute. By demanding that the Pres & Admin follow the law we're getting the biggest bang for the buck, a long-range methodology for protection and a balance of power working together.
Follow the law, protect the people. Cheat and the people are vulnerable. Simple.
Professor Foland said...
"...let me argue that the Democratic Senators are beating a tactical retreat."
I'd like to be able to agree with you, but I am not holding my breath until Democratic Senators show they are capable of working together in a coherent tactic. It's not in their genes.
Another great post, Glenn.
But don't miss this page one story in today's New York Observer: http://www.observer.com/20060327/20060327_Chris_Lehmann_pageone_coverstory1.asp
It is an intelligent, even-handed analysis of Feingold's motion for censure. It makes its importance clear and berates the Democratic establishment who have been too afraid to support it.
This piece should be required reading for all of us.
As long as the rightwing controls things they can frame the issues just the way they want with little pushback. In that sense, they do want to keep this issue out front. Except when something like this happens:
ALBUQUERQUE (AP) - The New Mexico Democratic Party is calling for President Bush's removal from office.
Party Chairman John Wertheim said Tuesday that delegates to Saturday's state party convention supported a call for the president's impeachment largely because of "perceived abuses of power and corruption in the Bush administration."
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/41145.html
But, again, does anyone think this will be a topic of heated discussion this weekend on the tv talkshows?
Democratic Senators show they are capable of working together in a coherent tactic.
Perhaps sometimes we need to sometimes talk about what WAS the democratic party? This was always a loose coalition -- in the "old" south, it was a haven for jim crow, segregation, and racism.
My father used to always say that Southern Dems would be considered republicans in the north.
The issues that tied the party together we ALL ECONOMIC. The party had to build coalitions of support from people with some pretty serious fundamental disagreement and work together.
The demonization of the term "liberal" was accomplished by convincing both sides that it was "class warfare" and impolite to talk about the economic issues that once were the base of the party.
Then, the repugs were able to peel away the racist wing that was once the democratic base in the south -- it is amazing to see the Civil War south vote almost exclusively republican.
Now, the blogosphere wants to proclaim that the Democratic Party is all about "a women's right to choose," "gay rights" and any number of important legitimate issues; but we have abandoned the economic issues that have tied diverse coalitions together.
Perhaps it is because the blogosphere represents people with $2000 computers, broadband connections, and the word "liberal" now applies only to the shopping habits of some.
I am not saying these things are wrong (or that they apply to EVERYONE), but there are clearly no issues that bind diverse populations together -- especially in the blogosphere.
Perhaps we can "rally around" the repug "culture of corruption" and our criminal chimperor, but we will eventually need to talk about what we would do AFTER successfuly gaining majority status in our government.
Until we talk about the issues that carried the democratic party for most of the 20th century, one hand is tied behind our back when we talk about winning elections to return the government to the people.
Glenn--Excellent analysis, per usual. One thing I have noted about your earlier and your present analysis of the President's argument for using his so-called "inherent power," is that you seem have dropped the questioning of whether the US is at "war" or not.
I seem to recall that in your earlier postings you questioned this notion, especially given Gonzales' admission before the judiciary committee that the US is not "at war" by law, cince that idea brings with it certain legal and constituional protocols that I am yet unclear about.
Zbigniew Brezenski has argued this point about whether we are literally at war in recent speeches and interviews. For him, it means several things, but in the conetxt of this issue, there's his notion that in a "real" war the President might indeed have a requirement and constituional power to override various laws and abrogate constituional rights. I think of Lincoln abrogating habeas corpus during the civil war.
The gist of my comments is the following: the Right continues to purvey the illusion that the country is at war--and given that it is at war, the President can assert these "constituionally given powers."
If Brezienski and you (in your earlier comments) are right, however, war has not really been declared. "use of force" yes, but that nowhere meets the definition of "war." As long as the Right continues to uphold this illusion that there is a "war," their assertions about Bush's NSA program will always carry some weight.
The question then becomes how to counter and undermine this idea--in terms which the public can understand--that there really is no war, there's simply a miliatry undertaking to stop a tactic (as Brezenski notes) called terrorism.
I find myself reaching the limits of clarity here, so I'll hold off commenting further until you or others can provide further context.
Glenn,
Your post helped reduce my stress and anxiety this morning … thanks.
I listened to NPR during my morning commute. They covered the illegal eavesdropping scandal (I mean terrorist surveillance program) by presenting a commentary by Pepperdine law professor Douglas Kmiec. Kmeic’s point was essentially this is much ado about nothing, and that Democrats are escalating the rhetoric with inflammatory and extreme charges. He asked that we all calm down, and develop a compromise to allow the president to continue this valuable program. He mentioned the Young case, but then brushed it aside with the comment that supporters believe the President to be at the zenith of his power and critics believe that he is at the lowest ebb of his power, and thus the ruling does not assist us in any way towards understanding this particular event. The segment then followed it up with comments from the street about American’s views of this program and censure. They interviewed two individuals, both of whom were against censure, and one of whom invited the President to eavesdrop on her, as she had nothing to hide. I assume the point of the interviews is to show that no one supports censure and Americans support the President’s warrantless eavesdropping. Gotta love that left-wing media bias!
...does anyone think this will be a topic of heated discussion this weekend on the tv talkshows?
More likely to see it on Sesame Street than the MSM propaganda catapult. The lying liars will not touch this one - after all, there will be serious repurcussions if the Dems take our government back.
Even if the Dems cave and do not go after the criminals (likely), the integrity of the MSM will surely come under closer scrutiny - murdoch's proclaimination the media empires will become dinosaours could unfold as a self-fullfilling prophesy.
As a followup to previous post: perhaps the Dems could bring this question of whether we are at war or not by actually bringing to the floor an official declaration of war.
Glenn Reynolds writes:
Well, I actually think that Glenn Greenwald wants to be me, though if so he'd be well advised to stop lifting his stuff from Tom Tomorrow.
Wow. That’s his first sentence and it’s totally dishonest. I’m the one who put Reynold’s post in the comments and I gave a link to Tom Tomorrow.
Glenn Greenwald credited both me and Tom Tomorrow for the quote and then linked directly to the Reynold’s post in question.
How is that possibly “lifting” anything? It implies that Glenn Greenwald did something dishonest, which is totally false and Reynolds knows it.
Reynolds quotes and links to people dozens of times a day, would he feel it fair to characterize that as “lifting” other peoples quotes?
That is, after all, about all he does. How pathetic.
Whether or not their is a war just becomes a debate over semantics -- when the public was standing up against the vietnam war, sure, that was an issue -- BUT WE WERE ALSO WILLING TO TALK ABOUT THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.
War is always about economic issues - PERIOD! Yet so-called "liberals" will not take stands on the issues that used to carry their message.
Sure, some are not ready to discuss them and we need to build a broad coalition of support. We don't need to have EVERYONE agree on these points to create momentum for change.
But we also cannot stay away from the issues that have historically created the base for the Democratic party.
We can't win a debate of the definition of "war" because the shiting sands of their rational will change anyhow. If we are spending BILLIONS AND BILLIONS on the war-machine (much of it fraudulently) we are engaged in some type of "war".
In this case, it is a WAR ON WORKING AMERICANS, FAMILIES, AND CHILDREN.
The "war" is wildly successful beyond the military-industrial complex's dreams.
BUSH DIDN'T BUNGLE IRAQ, YOU FOOLS
THE MISSION WAS INDEED ACCCOMPLISHED
The Guardian
Monday Mar 20, 2006
by Greg Palast
Get off it. All the carping, belly-aching and complaining about George Bush's incompetence in Iraq, from both the Left and now the Right, is just dead wrong.
I pray that people will agree to disagree where they must, but I do also hope that people will take back the issues that will define Democrats as the party that will end chimpy's economic war.
Many of the rest of our problems (including NSA scandal) will then become manageable. Until then, they are just more noise for the MSM "echo chamber."
anon @ 12:06 pm: it's only a useless exercise in semantics when there are no real consequences. In constitutional terms, there are real consequences to whether there's a war or not.
Wow. That’s his first sentence and it’s totally dishonest. I’m the one who put Reynold’s post in the comments and I gave a link to Tom Tomorrow.
You're absolutely right, Zack, and honestly, I took that as a compliment. I don't make any secret about the fact that I strongly dislike the way that Glenn Reynolds presents arguments and I think he's one of the most intellectually dishonest people around (it takes awhile to realize that because of the obscuring and non-committal way he makes his statements, but that's ultimately one of the things that accounts for how intellectually dishonest his claims are), but I try very hard never to attack him personally or call him names, but instead confine myself to his "arguments."
The fact that Instapundit has been resorting to all sorts of little snide and indirect personal attacks on me that way, just like Ponnuru did yesterday, to me means they have nothing to say. Personal insults - especially the cliches they hurl -- are so, so easy, and are almost always the sign of someone who is angry, frustrated, and has nothing to say.
I honestly couldn't imagine wanting to engage in political debate by calling people names like "moonbat," saying "he wants to be me," and accusing them of "lifting" an argument from someone whom they expressly credited. It's so cheap and dumb that I genuinely don't see how anyone can do that stuff without being embarrassed by it.
Really - calling someone a moonbat in the middle of a political argument? How frustrated do you have to be? It is nothing than other childish. And that's from the Senior Editor of National Review.
I listened to NPR during my morning commute. They covered the illegal eavesdropping scandal (I mean terrorist surveillance program) by presenting a commentary by Pepperdine law professor Douglas Kmiec. Kmeic’s point was essentially this is much ado about nothing, and that Democrats are escalating the rhetoric with inflammatory and extreme charges.
Doug Kmiec taught me Con Law at a school other than Pepperdine. Previously I have posted his fretful comments that Bush's illegal spying would only have been permitted under Youngstown in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. He has suggested Bush is relying on bad legal advice.
Kmiec is a theocon, and former member of the Reagan DoJ where he helped Ed Meese go after pornographers. He is also a Republican to his bone marrow, and feels the S. Ct. could declare fetuses to be persons. Further, he rather frequently contributes to NRO, and if memory serves, has even put up a thing or two at The Corner (but i could be wrong about that).
For a man like Kmiec to merely be saying this is a difficult issue and that both Congress and the White House should calm down, indicates how vapid Bush's legal arguments are. Kmiec is a very smart, basically fair-minded if far-right guy, and so he isn't coming out and flatly saying that Bush's arguments are strong and they'd prevail in court -- he knows better.
Instead, he's preaching the non-legal argument of political "compromise."
In constitutional terms, there are real consequences to whether there's a war or not.
Resectfully disagree -- the BILLIONS AND BILLIONS that are being drained from our economy and the fact that this is supported on both sides of the fence say otherwise.
But I can agree to disagree with you on this one -- issues are too important to allow differences on these issues to override the goals.
It will be pretty hard to convince lawmakers that continue to vote for appropriates of this magnitude that these is not some type of "military issue" and from that point on, we are arguing over what chimpy calls a "damn piece of paper."
There are other angles we could take that would tend to reach across broader coalitions...
But I am not saying you are wrong.
Most annoying thing about republicans:
That such obviously true things as Glenn said in this post have to be said, because republicans are such immature liars.
I agree and have been badgering my senators.
However, another "issue" has been brought to my attention: reports that the censure measure precludes any special prosecutor investigations or even possible impeachment for associated crimes.
Is this just another "spin" designed to isolate Feingold, or a real concern?
From jsonline.com:
GOP to air ad criticizing Feingold for censure proposal
Washington - The Republican National Committee says it will begin airing an ad on talk radio shows in Milwaukee and Madison this week criticizing Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold for his proposal to censure President Bush.
The ad describes Feingold as the "leader" of a group of Democrats "working against" the president's efforts to "secure our country" by monitoring terrorist communications and disrupting terrorist plots.
Do you think we'll be seeing any DNC ads clearly explaining the difference between supporting censure for breaking the law and supporting terrorists?
Gotta love this Bush quote: "They ought to stand up and say, The tools we're using to protect the American people shouldn't be used. They ought to take their message to the people and say, Vote for me. I promise we're not going to have a terrorist surveillance program. That's what they ought to be doing. That's part of what is an open and honest debate." and thanks to the above post for providing it.
This is pure campaign rhetoric. Love it. Best now to remember that Bush's credibility is shot. No one believes him anymore and btw, we must recognize that this type talk is juxtaposed to his statement of yesterday; i.e. that bringing the troops home from Iraq will be left to "future presidents". That would be 2009 at the earliest. Think Americans are prepared to support this fiasco at a billion per week for two and a half more years. Everytime he opens his mouth, he loses more support.
Also, please note Librarians reference to Brezinski on NPR yesterday. He's put forth a plan for Iraq that would work. As I remember it it calls for a) the Iraqi government to ask us to leave (and that is probably what will happen, I believe), b) for the Iraqi government to convene a summit of Arab/Muslim governments regionally to establish a plan for security, and c) for the US to form a conference of donor nations to help provide funding for the reconstruction of the country. Good idea, maybe the only workable plan but do you think Bush can do anything that has a basis in diplomacy. Don't think so.
As Biden said the other day, just think what firing Dumsfeld would do for worldwide public opinion of the US but Bush can't do it. He is incapable of admitting to error. That is by definition symptomatic of weakness. He's a weanie.
Instead, he's preaching the non-legal argument of political "compromise."
This is because the NSA controversy is not a legal controversy. It is, instead, a political controversy. This is the fatal mistake that both you and Glenn are continuing to make, and the mistake that will result in your complete defeat and humiliation when this issue is resolved in the next few weeks.
Apparently, the media did not report the signing statement bush wrote on March 9 on the Patriot act re-authorization which allows him to ignore the new cosmetic civil liberties protections that came with the bill.
USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization Redux
President Bush’s signing statement conflicts with new oversight provisions. Earlier this month, Congress disappointed millions of Americans by approving a PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill whose cosmetic fixes fail to meet basic demands for civil liberties protections. Missing from the bill are standards requiring particularized suspicion and real oversight on National Security Letters and section 215 orders for private records. The media failed to report that when President Bush signed the bill last Thursday, March 9, he issued a signing statement asserting his right to ignore its oversight provisions, including the reauthorization bill’s sections 106A and 119. Those sections require the DOJ Inspector General (IG) to audit the “effectiveness and use, including any improper or illegal use” [emphasis added] of the FBI’s investigative authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) as it applies to section 215 and of its authority to issue National Security Letters, respectively.
I don't have a specific link, but I believe you can find this at www.democracyinaction.org
The President knowingly and deliberately ignoring US law, arguing he is completely within his rights to do so, is not a 'legal' controversy?
And here I thought we were a nation where our elected officials were supposed to obey the rule of law. My mistake.
Excellent post, Glenn! Keep hammering away at the appeasement wing of the Democratic Party!
Glen, I appreciate your efforts to clarify that there are two distinct questions, one about the scope of the NSA program, the other about whether the President should be censured for breaking the law and lying about it.
But there's another distinction that may or may not be valid, and that relates to how Senators respond to the Censure issue (and how we respond to them).
If a Senator says, "I support an hearing on the Censure motion, to determine whether it is appropriate to censure the President," is that a good sign or a bad one? Ideally, we might prefer a Senator saying, "I agree the President broke the law and I will vote 'aye' on the motion." But suppose the senator says only the first.
It could be duck, or it could be a political supportive move, depending on intent and outcomes and what we'd like to get out of the entire process.
dAs usual, nice work, and thank you.
Would censure stop Bush from illegal spying? I think not. Thus, Feingold Resolution for censure is only a political exercise.
What I really want is a special prosecutor. The legality of the apparently illegal NSA spy program could be determined and indictments could be sought if laws have been broken.
Any bets a Republican Congress would impeach Bush if he was convicted? I don't think it would be a slam dunk. That would really rock if a siitng President finished his term in jail.
MYTH/EXCUSE NUMBER TWO: Republicans want this scandal to persist because it benefits them politically.
Glenn, while your analysis is spot on, it's time to simply respond to this by saying, "Great, lets keep talking about it" That's a bluff anyone should be willing to call.
Great post. And a number of good comments here. Clearly the "discussion" Republicans want here is the type they have in the RNC ad: a transparent lie about what's going on. The "discussion" the Administration wants is the kind where the AG gets in front of the Judiciary committee, isn't sworn in, evades almost every question, and the few answers he does give require a 20 (or whatever)-page "clarification".
One point to emphasize/clarify is the whole notion of "legal arguments" versus "factual disputes". To many, the issue of law-breaking may still be debatable. They haven't studied the issue enough or their eyes glaze over at anything resembling legalese, and so when they hear the Admin's theories of AUMF and Article II powers they might believe that there's something to them, that what we have are two competing legal theories, so perhaps what the Prez is doing is lawful.
That's a key point that the Humes of the world are relying heavily on. As long as they can convince people that there's a plausible theory that this is legal they can deflect the idea that it's illegal.
Parrying that single point is critical, I think. If it can be done, either via getting the case to the courts, by getting a real investigation out of Specter, or, absent that, by really hammering clearly on how weak these so-called justifications are, I think another 10-20% (or more) come over to Feingold's way of viewing this issue.
More than anything, that's the "discussion" the Repubs don't want: Their legal theories exposed for the pathetic, after-the-fact fig leaves that they are.
Myth #1 is so thoroughly exploded, I can't even find the words.
That's the whole thing. An investigation is INCAPABLE of reaching a conclusion on the question of whether the president has these magical inherent authorities.
It. Can. Never. Happen.
To put a point on it, Feingold ought to introduce a censure resolution targeting the Republican committee chairs who've prevented the mythical investigations from going forward. See how many Dems jump at the chance to cosponsor that. Zero, of course.
If the myth has any meat to it, though, they should be lining up at the desk.
When they don't show, you'll know those Senators know they're full of it.
Really - calling someone a moonbat in the middle of a political argument?
Not to mention that 'moonbat' is an 'insult' that is essentially meaningless to anyone who is not a right-winger. They might as well call you a 'zazwuz' because it is equally nonsensical.
(Please, no one link to any explanations of what 'moonbat' is supposed to mean, I've seen them all, and it is still amazingly lame.)
Despite Glenn's constant braying about SCANDAL, the political leaderships of both parties recognize that this is a classic constitutional clash that the Founders anticipated would be worked out via the mechanism of compromise. This is why Feingold's attempt to transform it into a legal matter hasn't gained any significant traction. But this doesn’t matter to Feingold. Everyone knows his motive, i.e., to lock up the moonbat wing of the party in preparation for his presidential run, a party segment that is both incredibly affluent and angry...and thus a ready source of funds for his campaign.
Feingold’s effort has absolutely no change at success. But, so what? Since his real interest is making sure that all of you give money to him over the next few months (many of you will, right?), he’ll succeed wonderfully. At the same time, Glenn and those who support him will be left at the sidelines in defeat and humiliation, watching open-mouthed in stupefaction as the NSA program is “legalized” by Patriot Act sized majorities in both houses of congress.
That's a key point that the Humes of the world are relying heavily on. As long as they can convince people that there's a plausible theory that this is legal they can deflect the idea that it's illegal
Let's hope Hume and Company keep it up. Talk about it everyday. Hammer it home. Warrentless spying on Americans is legal because the president has absolute authority in time of "war". Drink that kool aid.
I say again, Bush is in a box from which he can never emerge. No one believes him anymore. It like inmates who claim they are innocent. Once credibility is gone, its gone and cannot be regained.
I got this from barbara boxer:
Thank you for contacting me regarding Senator Russell Feingold's (D-WI) resolution to censure President Bush. I want to you know that I appreciate hearing from you, and I am a co-sponsor of this resolution.
On March 13, 2006, Senator Feingold introduced Senate Resolution 398, which would admonish President Bush for his unlawful authorization of the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program, his failure to keep Congress fully informed of this program as required by law, and his efforts to mislead the American people about the legality of the program and the legal authorities relied upon by his administration to conduct it.
The Feingold Resolution has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee at the request of Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA), and Senator Feingold has called for the Committee to hold hearings, debate, and then vote on the resolution. I share Senator Feingold's strong objections to the administration's warrantless domestic wiretapping program, and I intend to vote for Senator Feingold's resolution should it come before the Senate.
Again, thank you for writing me.
Feingold’s effort has absolutely no change at success.
It has already succeeded. Everyone everywhere, online and on TV, is still discussing the issue, thanks to Russ Feingold.
Other Bush apologists here and elsewhere have been, since this scandal's inception, announcing its imminent demise. Yet, here we are, more than 3 mos after the NYT reported Bush's illegal and criminal behavior, and the scandal is more alive than ever -- it catapulted Glenn's blog into the highest ranks of the blogosphere.
Glenn has a book coming out shortly. Feingold now has a platform to answer the RNC's attacks on him (if this is such a nothing, why attack ads that only keep the issue high profile?), and I'm sure there will be counter-ads run, stressing the truth, namely, that the censure resolution is about illegal snooping on Americans in violation of the law, the nature and extent of which surveillance are not supervised by any judge. Bush is so widely perceived as incompetent, and as a liar; Americans are not going to like the idea of his deciding on his own steam, in violation of the law, who he should be listening to without a warrant.
Really, I think you should assume that some smart people are strategizing as to how to ensure this issue continues to have legs; evidence suggests that has been happening. Certainly I've seen no evidence that the many deaths predicted for the NSA scandal have been realized.
Ironically, I actually think that the best thing that could happen for Glenn's book is if the Republicans succeeded in killing off this scandal without a fight by Democrats. People would be so furious that they would for a venue to find a real battle against this Administration.
Whatever happens with the NSA stuff, we have 3 years to go with the Bush regime. That they are claiming the right to break the law, the subject of Glenns book, is going to be an extremely important topic either way.
It has already succeeded. Everyone everywhere, online and on TV, is still discussing the issue, thanks to Russ Feingold.
So your measure of success is "discussion"? Fine and good. I thought it was censure of the president.
If you're going to go to your Senator's offices and make a case for censure, you might also want to consider another angle. The program is unconstitutional, not just illegal. Obviously the standard of "probable cause" has been substituted for "reasonable basis" within this program (see General Hayden's description), which clearly violates the fourth amendment. As for "unreasonable search and seizure", "reasonable basis" does not address that;it is the basis of "probable cause" that assures that any searches are indeed reasonable, as that is the required standard to bear.
Glenn, as always, makes great points - but consider this too if you are going to make a case to your elected representatives. "Don't you think that an unconstitutional act is basis enough for a censure, when Bush is sworn to uphold the Constitution?" How can they say "no" or argue it may be constitutional? Have fun!
Glenn - Please, please submit this as an Op-Ed to as many publications as you can.
Also you should issue a Press Release making this document available as a PDF download for the national and regional press (encouraging them to plagiarize your thoughts).
"Anon" spews: So your measure of success is "discussion"? Fine and good. I thought it was censure of the president.
Actually, I'm not sure what to think, and it has occurred to me that to truly understand this scandal, I need to know the thoughts of the finest mind on the planet, namely, Byron York's. Also, what have Commentary and all of its "important" writers to say about the matter?
What is it, news of Glenn's book drove you back here? Making you crazy, is it?
The most disheartening aspect of the discussion of wiretapping is the oft repeated homily: If you have nothing to hide, why do you care if they're listening? This little bit of conventional fascism attempts to blur the distinction between what is illegal and what should remain private. Without doing anything illegal, think about the consequences of having these communications listened to:
1. Your discussions with partners about your business plans
2. Conversations with your broker or other financial institutions
3. Conversations with your wife about your kids, and the problems raising them.
4. Conversations with a girl/boyfriend.
5. Conversations with your physician, therapist or psychiatrist.
6. Conversations with your lawyer.
7. Conversations with your accountant.
In all of those cases, and probably many more I can't think of, there is an assumption of at least a minimal amount of privacy, or else the phone, e-mail or fax machine becomes useless except for exchanging remarks about the weather or pictures of your pets.
In every case, even though you are doing nothing illegal, the information gained from them would be very harmful in the hands of the wrong people.
Remember, it's not Bush or Cheney personally who will be listening to your communications, but operatives who are open to all the normal temptations of bribery, political or religious maliciousness (pretty much the same, these days) or personal revenge.
The old canard "If you're not doing anything illegal, you have nothing to be afraid of" should more realistically be "If you're not doing anything, you have nothing to be afraid of.
And we are all doing something.
Sometimes I think the wire tapping has turned up something on all of these Congresspeople and they know to keep their mouths shut.
Sorry to have beat the same old drum again, Glenn: but despite the validity of the points you have made (and continue to make) regarding the NSA/warrantless wiretap scandal - the actual likelihood of anything actually being done about the Bush Administration's overreach of power is still, IMO, unfortunately quite an open issue. Assuming "Anonymous" posting at 1:39 and and 2:05 is the same person: ignoring their arrogant air of smug certainty about the outcome of this whole affair: he/she does hit (obliquely, to be sure) on a weakness of the anti-Adminstration case: that, even given the obvious legal/Constitutional issues involved: the nature of our system compels that it has to be resolved on a fundamentally political level: one where the "case" against President Bush is far from a slam-dunk, either in concept or execution.
You quite rightly make the distinction between the "Illegality Issue" and the "Abuses Issue": but I would posit that in the absence of strong evidence pointing to any of the latter, Congressmen/Senators who have to worry about the perceptions of the (voting) public might/will - for whatever reasons - be likely to overlook, or accept the Administration's interpretation on the former. And politics, not the law, will probably drive their reactions.
This is why I think it is just as important, if not more so, to push as hard for a serious investigation (and not just a Republican-led whitewash) of the Administration's warrantless-wiretap program to determine exactly what sort of "abuses" may have been committed. Otherwise, we are left only with competing legalistic arguments about the scope of Presidential powers; and since that debate will be carried out in a political forum, not a judicial one, the issue of "The Law" may, sadly, become irrelevant.
Of course, there may also be another pitfall: even a thorough investigation of the Bush Admins' illegal surveillance may not turn up anything particularly damaging (to them): either because such information is too "classified" to be revealed (and thus useless for "censure" purposes), or, even so: may actually have been directed at targets provably associated with terrorism (although in that case, why the Administration bypassed the notably lax FISA Court procedures is baffling).
However, if the Government can be shown to have significantly "abused" the process (spying on, say, attorneys; or domestic anti-war groups, or Democratic Senators): then it will be, imo, all up for Shrub and his gang - Nixon time.
It's becoming more and more amusing to read the desperate attempts on the part of Bush's core supporters to make it seem like they will somehow succeed in keeping Bush from paying for his crimes. They puff themselves up like blowfish as they try to keep people from seeing that Bush's support is fading fast, and will end up somewhere around the marginal level of the truly moonbat far right--probably in the sub-20% range.
But it sure is fun to watch. We've had to put up with 5 years of their chest-thumping self-delusion, and it's only due to the tragedy of 9/11 that the veil didn't come off their pale pink king earlier. They used 9/11 to fear-monger their way into a 2nd term, but the truth somehow always comes out--and for them it's meant seeing their Fearless Leader's poll #s plunge as Americans learn the truth about Bush's real failings.
I've been and will continue to push for a full investigation of Bush's illegal activities. I have no faith in our utterly disfunctional MSM to carry out it's function, so it may be that Bush will succeed in sweeping this investigation under the rug for now. I hope he won't get away with it, but if he does it won't cause me to worry. His incompetence is so complete that any one of his failings will grow into enough of a boondoggle to guarantee the demise of the freakshow collection of right-wing partisans who now squeal so loudly across the board of our demented media world. On radio, TV, and internet the Limbaughs, Humes and Reynolds's, along with their loud little band of Bush loyalists, will get ever more desperate over time. As they lose their power to convince anybody anymore that the man they've chosen to embody their hopes for world domination is anything but the hapless rich boy who never grew up, they'll be forced to watch their Boy-King face the music. For the first time in his life George Bush will learn that some actions have consequences that even a rich Daddy can't bail you out of.
Iraq is a ticking timebomb, and all the press conferences in the world can't make the fantasy Karl Rove wants America to see into the reality on the ground.
It's truly amazing to watch the Bush administartion contort itslef to avoid seeing the failure of it's plans for world domination. The guys who avoided service in Viet Nam like the plague are not surprisingly the ones who never learned the lessons it taught. Rumsfeld actually believed he could win in Iraq "on the cheap," and the Powell Doctrine, that the rest of America knew was necessary to avoid ever having another failure on the level of Viet Nam, was cast aside like every other troubling reality that got in the way of the fantasies of the Bush/Cheney Gang.
It would be funny if it weren't so horrifying. So many tens of thousands of people have died over this disaster that history will have an easy time rendering judgment on the fatal hubris that allowed Bush to fail so utterly in Iraq. He carried the same ignorance of consequences his family bought for him all his life into his fantasy run as POTUS. He truly believed he could create realities out of whole cloth.
Bush embodies everything the American Dream despises. Bush was handed everything on a silver platter and never in his life had to take resposibilty for his actions. His family made sure he never had to face the consequences that follow actions. How a man like that can become the embodiment of the political hopes of a loud bunch of rich white Americans is the sad reality of America today. Watching the idiots at FOXNews work furiously to keep Americans from ever learning the truth about any of Bush's actions is all one has to see to understand how far we've sunk since Clinton handed Bush the surpluses we managed to earn in 8 short years of proper fiscal policy. For the rich in America to be so desperate for those few extra bucks a year that they'll sell their country to the Chinese for it, and to then see the rubes at FOX go along with whatever stuffs the most money into the pockets of the few at the top is pretty much all you have to see to know what changes we need to make real fast.
Bush takes the same delusional approach to running the country that he did to running his private life. It's no wonder he still clings to the fantasy that all will turn out well in Iraq. The rest of the country learned the lessons of Viet Nam, but Bush lived a life where any failure was quickly covered up and he was given an even better job in place of the one he'd failed at. I'm sure he thinks some divine hand will reach in and fix this mess too. Why wouldn't he?
The same attitude applies to his lawbreaking. The rules that govern the lives of other lesser humans, don't apply to George W. Bush. Rules and consequences are for those who work for you. The Boss gets to do whatever he wants, and if you question Him, you'll be out on your ass. Bush rules 101.
I enjoy watching Bush loyalists pretend their legal opinions somehow count. As they argue the minutiae of legalisms here and elsewhere, they pretend they look forward to seeing Bush's actions finally openly discussed. If that were true you'd think they'd embrace the calls for actual investigation, but they don't, of course. They'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming into court, where they'll see Bush finally frog-marched off to jail.
Wail away Bushies. I love reading your proclamations of future victories. It will make Bush's fall even sweeter to watch. I used to feel sorry for Bush, and the people who will be most let down by him, but they're arrogance has made it impossible to do anything other than anticipate their future with relish.
When we pick up the pieces left after Bush gets done with America, we'll remember we have to elect people with actual competence to important offices. Just because a guy is born rich, doesn't mean he's qualified to do anything but throw a mean BBQ.
Glenn,
Thanks to the link in your previous post, I listened to the audio of "To the Point". And the, um, "discussion" there led me to actually read the full text of Sen. Feingold's censure resolution.
I agree with you that the censure is for the President's actions and for lying about it. I suppose it might be said by his supporters ("sunbats"?) that he is being censured for "defending" his actions-- but the point is that his defense was more lies. (Explicit in the resolution, with examples.)
For some reason, I have been reminded of something I heard 25-30 years ago, that the Red Brigades terrorists who set off bombs in W Germany back then were primarily hoping to prompt the government to adopt an authoritarian reaction. Then the Brigades could point out how oppressive the government was. Thankfully, the W German government by and large steered a middle ground in response.
The point: Al Qaeda, however, succeeded where the Red Brigades failed.
(Am I the only one who remembers this about the Red Brigades? Is my memory more clear than the reality?)
A few months ago, David Mamet wrote a great piece in the Los Angeles Times using a poker metaphor for the political moves the Rs use to outwit the Ds. Politics-as-poker is nothing new, but it seems particularly apt in cases like this one. The Rs have raised the stakes (raised) despite possibly being on a side of this issue that won't win (having an inferior hand) for them on Election Day (showdown). These bluffs are effective because the Democrats will back down from the issue (fold), allowing the Rs to portray the Ds as spineless and make the issue into a winner for them (take down the pot).
I haven't really entirely decided which sort of bad player the Ds emulate -- the "calling station" or the weak-tight player who constantly folds with the best hand. Either way, they're not winning.
In fact I think poker gives some insight on how to play this. If the Ds really have a good hand, as I think they do, they should just continue to call the Rs bluff, i.e. let this dribble along in the news without backing down. Dilapidus suggested this above. I'm not sure what a reraise would look like in our metaphor -- maybe threatening to make an even bigger deal out of the issue, right here and now -- but it would risk inducing the Republicans. Like all opponents who are compulsive bluffers, I'd rather encourage them to keep bluffing away all their chips a little at a time.
Or perhaps I'm taking the metaphor too far -- but certainly, always backing down is fatal, hence very Democratlike.
Errr, "inducing the Republicans" => "inducing the Republicans to back down"
Glenn: Ever since this scandal emerged, Republicans have been wallowing in the bravado of claiming that they "welcome" this scandal because it will benefit them politically, and they continue to engage in this chest-beating in the hopes that Democrats will be intimidated into walking away meekly from the President's law-breaking.
Arne Langsetmo: Well, to an extent, they actually do want this 'discussion' ... because they're hoping to "frame" the issues in the 'discussion' in a way favourable to them:
You Dems are beginning to catch on...
Arne Langsetmo: ...to wit, they want to claim that the choices are the (fallacy of bifurcation) choices of "Don't listen to the Terra-ists" or "Let Dubya do what he thinks is best for us in winning the 'War on Terra'". Guarantee you, you'll see them pushing this meme in any such 'debate' on the issue. Of course, they think this persiflage will fly, but it does open them to the possibility that some Democrats with balls will call them on it, and actually be able to dispute this false assumption and perhaps get the opposing message out far more than the sorry maladministration suck-ups in the MSM are doing now....
Well, maybe you haven't caught on...
This is how the GOP will frame this issue.
If you elect the Dems, they will impeach the President for listening in on al Qeada telephone calls into the United States. The Dems say listening in on al Qaeda telephone calls is illegal, yet {fill in the blank Dem] says he / she supports spying on al Qaeda.
This approach makes you look like al Qaeda apologists, Bush haters and hypocrites all at the same time.
In return, your favorite Dem running for office in 2006 will be left attempting to argue the technicalities of the FISA warrant process without being able to discuss the program itself.
Do you think that anyone gives two damns for al Qeada's warrant rights?
Which message do you think makes the better 30 second ad?
As I stated before, God Speed people. We want this fight. I have written my Dem senator to get a vote on this motion. My Elephant senator already supports holding a vote.
chitom - I don't remember the Red Brigades, but it is considered biolerplate by many Italians that the activities attributed to them in Italy were often conducted by CIA operatives.
The theory is that 'Communist' violence would then justify an increasingly authoritarian response by the government.
To me, the response to the GOP ad, and Bush’s statements in the press conference yesterday mischaracterizing supportors of the censure motion, is quite simple. As Glenn has pointed out in previous blogs, when FISA was amended under the Patriot Act and later, when further amendments were contemplated, Bush and others in the administration repeatedly asserted that FISA provided them all the tools they needed to electronically monitor terrorists. Those words should be played again and again, along with a statement that ‘all we’re insisting upon is that this administration comply with the law; a law they, themselves, have acknowledged is sufficient to monitor terrorists.” That then needs to be followed by a question that really should be the focus of this debate – “What really is going on here; why has this Administration intentionally cast aside a law that adequately monitors terrorist communications, and whose only ‘weakness’ is that it contains provisions insuring that the powers exercised under the law not be abused?”
However, if the Government can be shown to have significantly "abused" the process (spying on, say, attorneys; or domestic anti-war groups, or Democratic Senators): then it will be, imo, all up for Shrub and his gang - Nixon time.
The moonbat wet dream.
Terrific, concise and clear analysis of the issue. As it's not really that complicated an issue, especially as cogently laid out by you, what can explain the position of the Democratic officials?
l) They cannot follow a few basic facts about an issue which is not that complex?
2) They have never been informed of the basic facts?
Or what? When a large group of elected leaders, many of whom are lawyers, acts in a totally inexplicable way which can not even be explained away by "partisanship", the question clearly becomes: why?
Surely it can't be the case that savyy politicians are not aware of the "spin" that goes on by the oppostition party nor are aware of the factors which motivate various pundits to take the positions they do.
So why?
What if it's nothing more than that they are comfortable with, in fact enthusiastic about ever wider powers of government to snoop on and "control" the public?
Apparently privacy issues and constitutional protections don't concern them.
What's up, anyway? And where does that leave us?
JimLanc said...
To me, the response to the GOP ad, and Bush’s statements in the press conference yesterday mischaracterizing supportors of the censure motion, is quite simple. As Glenn has pointed out in previous blogs, when FISA was amended under the Patriot Act and later, when further amendments were contemplated, Bush and others in the administration repeatedly asserted that FISA provided them all the tools they needed to electronically monitor terrorists. Those words should be played again and again, along with a statement that ‘all we’re insisting upon is that this administration comply with the law; a law they, themselves, have acknowledged is sufficient to monitor terrorists.” That then needs to be followed by a question that really should be the focus of this debate – “What really is going on here; why has this Administration intentionally cast aside a law that adequately monitors terrorist communications, and whose only ‘weakness’ is that it contains provisions insuring that the powers exercised under the law not be abused?”
This post proves my point about fitting the message on a 30 second ad.
I explained the GOP argument in two short sentences.
As I posted, you will be reduced to attempting to explain the complexities of FISA and I assure you less than 2% of the population can tell you what FISA is all about.
OT
Did anyone read the statement released by Gallup announcing its decision to end its association with CNN?
It's an unusual release. Usually such a statement would announce the dissolution of the association, state how much they have enjoyed it, put forth the reasons why they want to change it, and that would be it.
This statement (on Drudge) goes out of its way to denigrate CNN and paint it as a failed network with a dwindling audience.
I wonder if that is because CNN is the only televion news station that has "changed" lately and become more critical of the administration. It has become an alternative for people who cannot stomach the propaganda and distortions on Fox and MSNBC and the parroting of talking points by the major networks. I never watched it before so I am not an expert, but hasn't it become quite independent lately?
Could someone be "leaning" on Gallup? Or is it strictly business. That I would accept more readily if the statement hadn't been so unnecessarily dismissive of CNN.
Is USA a balanced newspaper?
Bart, the bedwetting Monarchist, ignores the obvious point: if Bush wasn't spying on AMERICANS then he would have welcomed the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation. Instead he fought it tooth and nail because he fears the TRUTH coming out.
The passage from Gonzales' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee is the following:
GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force.
I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force." ( from The Washington Post )
I cannot see how any opposition to Bush's interpretation of his executive privilege can succeed until the pre-supposition that the resolution to use military force = a declaration of war is successfully shown to be a lie and a deceit.
Talk about a horrible illusion. Most people without the legal background believe that there's a war on. How surprised they'd be that war in fact has never been declared and that all these actions undertaken in their name involves a deceit and an illusion perpetrated by not only the President but his loyal opposition, the Democratic Party.
Talk about double-speak. If this is not a fulfillment of Orwell’s nightmare, I don’t know what is.
BTW Rosa Brooks at LawCulture suggests--quoting from her article in a law journal--that there's no longer any legal avenues open to oppose Bush's power grab and constituional ransacking. Instead, she says that the solution must be political.
Gay Veteran said...
Bart, the bedwetting Monarchist, ignores the obvious point: if Bush wasn't spying on AMERICANS then he would have welcomed the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation. Instead he fought it tooth and nail because he fears the TRUTH coming out.
Over 20 members of the House and Senate have been fully briefed multiple times and had hundreds of their questions answered over the past two months.
Rockefeller had a 6.5 hour briefing at NSA and had 450 questions answered.
NONE of these reps and senators have said that the NSA is targeting Americans. Quite the opposite, most of them have commented favorably about the minimization procedures to avoid even accidental surveillance of Americans.
It is notable that Senator Feingold has not been briefed on the program and is speaking from ignorance in his censure resolution.
I explained the GOP argument in two short sentences.
The Democrats, especially the wing of the party represented here, cannot fathom the fact that this is a political, and not a legal controversy. The Republicans understand the distinction perfectly, and they are framing their strategy accordingly.
The Republicans can only hope that the Feingold wing of the party keeps beating this drum CENSURE IMPEACHMENT CENSURE IMPEACHMENT. The more attention they get the wider is the avenue of Republican counterattack. This is precisely why the Democratic party adults will (very soon!) get this issue off the table by supporting some version of the DeWine bill, wherein they will kill two birds with the same stone: marginalize Feingold and his moonbat brigade, and lay the groundwork for a nomination struggle among those Democrats who wish to convince the public of their national security credentials.
At that point, it will be much easier for Democrats to hang "spying, lawbreaking, and cover-up" on the Republicans than it is now. I think it's less an evasion than a set-up.
That would be a brilliant strategy. I'd love to think they are that smart and strategic but I haven't seen any evidence yet that they are.
Bart, the bedwetting Monarchist, ignores the obvious point...
Geez, yet another of the scatology brigade reveals himself here in Unclaimed Territory.
Obsession with defecation and urination is like gluttony...it is not a secret vice.
Pervasive surveillance, or:
"If you have nothing to hide, why do you care if they're listening?"
This is actually the hot-button issue for me, and what drove me originally to Glenn's blog. I, like so many others, vehemently oppose any attempts at installing an Orwellian network of pervasive surveillance. The Bush Administration's attempts to legitimize this through appeals to national security, while not altogether surprising, is quite frightening.
When thinking about privacy and surveillance, it is important to remember that our technology continues to evolve at an exponential rate. For example, it is often pointed out that the ECHELON program was created decades ago. This is usually part of the "deal with it, it's always been like this" argument. However, it has not "always been like this." Regardless of any abuses perpetrated by past administrations, the potential for abuse now is greater -- much greater -- than it has ever been. As I said in The Future of Privacy on Bruce Schneier's blog:
"Only in the last few decades has the technology emerged to turn this assumption [that we are not being watched] on its head. And only very recently has digital technology dramatically reduced the cost, making it widespread. And only in the near future will data storage, aggregation, and mining techniques permit all of this input to be processed."
Proponents of pervasive surveillance (isn't it astonishing that such people exist?) almost always frame the issue with some variation of the classic false dichotomy, "if you are doing nothing wrong, why should you worry?"
My response to this is direct, if rather boring:
"Those who simply repeat, 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear,' need to stop casting the person who is seeking privacy as the bad guy (e.g. a drunk driver). Consider all of the myriad possibilities in which *you* are victimized by high-tech thieves, heartless corporations, and corrupt officials."
In a related thread entitled Police Cameras in Your Home (*gulp*), readers provided many thoughtful and humorous responses to this question. For example:
"I'm not worried about ME doing something wrong, I'm worried about YOU doing something wrong."
Or this brief retort:
"You first".
Perhaps my favorite was:
"The question implies that the only reason a person may want privacy is in order to do something 'wrong'. This is a statement that could only be made by an ass."
And now, back to your regularly scheduled program ...
bart said "This post proves my point about fitting the message on a 30 second ad.
I explained the GOP argument in two short sentences.
As I posted, you will be reduced to attempting to explain the complexities of FISA and I assure you less than 2% of the population can tell you what FISA is all about."
How’s this for short. “ The Administration has acknowledged FISA provides all the tools needed to electronically monitor terrorists. Why isn't it using it?”
JimLanc said...
How’s this for short. “ The Administration has acknowledged FISA provides all the tools needed to electronically monitor terrorists. Why isn't it using it?”
Much better for brevity.
However, think about this for a second. How many people know the first thing about FISA? If they do not, how are they supposed to understand what you are talking about?
This is why the Feingold people are peddling the lie that the NSA Program is targetting Americans.
The GOP pitch speaks in concepts everyone already knows and about which they have preconceived and strongly held notions.
listening in on al Qaeda calls into the US = good
impeachment of the president = bad (this is the last time the GOP lost seats in Congress)
impeachment of the president for listening in on al Qaeda = are you nuts?
video of the dem targeted in the commercial saying that he or she supports the program = hypocrite
How’s this for short. “ The Administration has acknowledged FISA provides all the tools needed to electronically monitor terrorists. Why isn't it using it?”
What's the FISA?
The Democrats, especially the wing of the party represented here, cannot fathom the fact that this is a political, and not a legal controversy. The Republicans understand the distinction perfectly, and they are framing their strategy accordingly.
Saunders/Gedaliya: You have your own blog here. Glenn has been discussed there, for example your co-blogger friend "Caroline's" declaration that she doesn't agree with Glenn "these days," and she doesn't post here. There, at your own site, you may continue.
In the meantime, you have been asked to restrict yourself to one post per thread here.
Your themes and writing style are quite distinctive, so you aren't fooling me with the "anon" bit.You are rude, and not abiding by Glenn's polite request regarding his conditions for your posting here. Rant to your heart's content about how this NSA scandal is a political and not a legal issue, how disappointed Glenn is going to be when his book goes nowhere -- knock yourself out. But do it at your own site.
Folks, think about this for half a second with your brain rather than your heart...
On this NSA Program issue, the Elephants are not playing reverse psychology with you in order to protect the President.
When they thought that the Dems were getting to the right on them on the ports issue, the Elephants took less than a week to throw the President and one of our most important ME allies into a ditch so they could win that fight.
As to the NSA program, the Elephants are setting a trap and you folks are walking straight into it.
Bart, I agree, that as long as first grade, highly-distorted 5 second blurbs are the prevailing talking points, we don’t have a chance. That’s why I’m not in the advertising business. But it shouldn’t take too much effort by someone who is in the business to point out my initial, very simple point. There is a law on the books which this Administration has said provides them the tools to effectively monitor terrorist communications coming into this country. They have chosen not to comply with those laws. What Feingold and others are insisting is that the Administration comply with these effective laws, and if it won’t, it should be held accountable. These are not difficult concepts. It will take some time and effort to get them through to the public’s consitiousness. But it shouldn’t be that hard, and when it happens, hopefully there will be some collective acknowledgement that on this issue, like so many others, the Administration is attempting to pull the wool over the public’s eyes; and the downward spiral will continue.
I met up with my Congresswoman Heather Wilson yesterday at the Golden Pride Resturaunt. New Mexicans must be fed up with Washington Politicos because I was the only one that showed up! I told her that my family lost someone very close when my sister's fiancee died in a helecopter crash in Operation Enduring Freedom in 2002, and that her husband of less than one year is currently serving in Operation Iraqi Liberation. I asked her if she had read Tuesday's Albuquerque Journal with the banner headline about Removing President Bush from office, she replied that she had not! I quoted the NM Chairman of the Republican Party as saying that criticism of warrentless wiretaps is 'bullcrap', then I whipped out a copy of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution on unreasonable search and seizure and quoted, "and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause"! At least the President is listening to the American People! Marta Kramer, executive director for the Republican Party of New Mexico, said Tuesday , "How will dragging the country into impeachment hearings protect Americans?" she asked. "How will censuring the president protect Americans?" Censuring or Impeaching the President and Vice President will not protect Americans, but it will protect the US Constitution! I reminded Congresswoman Wilson that she voted seven years ago to impeach a popular President during a time of war, a war that resulted in 0 US Casualties by the way. I asked her to protect and defend the US Constitution, not George WMD Bush, and she said she would.
bart:
"However, think about this for a second. How many people know the first thing about FISA?"
Y'know, bart, the concept behind FISA isn't that difficult, nor are the American people as dense as you seem to assume, that they could not be educated about it with a couple of minutes' worth of infomercials: i.e. an outline of the law and its effects: not just political talking-points.
"This is why the Feingold people are peddling the lie that the NSA Program is targetting Americans."
Are they? And you know this to be a "lie" just how?
"impeachment of the president for listening in on al Qaeda = are you nuts?"
And outside of the usual blogosphere cranks, WHO has mentioned "impeachment", anyway? Sen. Feingold's intended resolution is one of "censure" (which is legally near-meaningless, if still a strong "official" statement).
Nice try, bart: but I, (like probably a lot of the commenters here AM using my "head", not my "heart" when contemplating the NSA/wiretapping issue.
I'm just curious, though: you seem to blithely assume that the American people are a nation of simpletons who can only think in grade-school stereotypes and react with knee-jerk reflexiveness to political/legal issues?
What kind of snooty elitist attitude is that?
And by the way, maybe a little OT: but can anyone explain why the Unclaimed Territory comments are timestamped 2 hours ahead of ET? Is the server located in Brazil or someplace?
If folks are lobbying, I again suggest that the substantive fight is over legislation that will amend FISA -- with judicial review, or without.
My strong preference is for Chairman Specter's bill, S 2453, which would require formal disclosure of surveillance programs -- those we know about and those we don't -- to the FISA courts, then empower the courts to approve/disapprove such programs.
Specter's bill -- the National Security Surveillance Act of 2006 -- also includes some broad new authority up-front for new surveillance. Citizen-lobbyists might want to speak in favor of narrowing these provisions; I would.
But by any measure, the structure of Specter's bill is hugely preferable to Sen. DeWine's bill, S 2455. This bill, drafted in conjunction with VP Cheney, would gut the courts' role and replace it with toothless congressional "oversight," in addition to ratifying the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program. This bill must be stopped.
It's all about judicial review, IMHO, and drawing a line to prevent further unilateral usurpation by the President. I think opposing any amendment of FISA is simply not a reasonable position to take, either politically or on the merits of policy.
While the censure issue may be valuable for raising the visibility of the substantive legal issues, remember that it is the legal issues themselves that count.
there's his notion that in a "real" war the President might indeed have a requirement and constituional power to override various laws and abrogate constituional rights. I think of Lincoln abrogating habeas corpus during the civil war.
An action that the Supreme Court in Ex parte Milligan held was illegal anywhere under the jurisdiction of the United States in which the civilian courts were still operating. The Rule of Law and the writ of habeas corpus still apply even in a "real" war, which this fiasco is not.
Could someone be "leaning" on Gallup? Or is it strictly business.
Strictly business for the lying liars at gallop -- they intentionally skew their polls to overstate the view on republicans. They also present polls in advance of the election that are "way off" and lean right.
Their goal is to influence voters. As it gets nearer to election time, they move closer to the rest of the polls -- after all, they don't want to get caught with their pants down.
Remember that prior to Venezuala's Chavez being elected with a HUGE majority of popular support, gallop and others were reporting he was going to lose in a landslide. By the time election day rolled around, the proclaimed it a draw. This is just another way to catapult the propaganda while trying to maintain a perception of integrity.
They did the same thing in US in 2004 -- said chimpy was going to win by a landslide early in the season (acknowledging they oversample repugs) and then reporting a tight race by election day.
Most curious of all is gallops silence about exit polls -- there are vital in a "democary" that does not have free, fair, open, and verifiable elections. Gallop knows better than anyone else that these polls prove that chimpy stole 2004.
I am not saying there have been big changes at CNN or that they are "liberal", but if they do not consistenly catapult the propaganda, gallop will want nothing to do with them.
Yup, business as usual...
Do your homework before you visit your reps!
For instance--I was talking with a staffer in my Senator's office who had *no idea* that a plurality of Americans support censure.
He simply had not heard of the ARG poll, and was quite interested when I showed it to him on the web.
A lot of good Senators are on the fence. They'll listen to their staffers. We can show them the facts that will help them make their case.
So print out the ARG poll--and Glenn's post--and bring them with you on your visit!
Jay C said...
bart: "However, think about this for a second. How many people know the first thing about FISA?"
Y'know, bart, the concept behind FISA isn't that difficult, nor are the American people as dense as you seem to assume, that they could not be educated about it with a couple of minutes' worth of infomercials: i.e. an outline of the law and its effects: not just political talking-points.
Compared to FISA, that abortion of a Medicare prescription program is simplicity incarnate. Yet, after hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on education, many are still hopelessly lost.
As a trial attorney, I learned early that law bores the hell out of most people and procedural law approaches the incomprehensible. It is not because people are stupid. They simply do not relate to rules which to them are meaningless.
As with advertising, you try cases with a simple story line with which people can identify. You have to be able to boil the complex down so it fits within that narrative.
Bart: "This is why the Feingold people are peddling the lie that the NSA Program is targetting Americans."
Are they? And you know this to be a "lie" just how?
Because every single Dem briefed on the program says that is not the case.
"impeachment of the president for listening in on al Qaeda = are you nuts?"
And outside of the usual blogosphere cranks, WHO has mentioned "impeachment", anyway? Sen. Feingold's intended resolution is one of "censure" (which is legally near-meaningless, if still a strong "official" statement).
Actually, this blog is filled with people who would like nothing better than to impeach Mr. Bush. Feingold himself stated that censure is the least the Congress could do and impeachment is possible.
The GOP ads are not going to make fine distinctions. They are going to say "impeachment" and let you try to make the distinctions.
I'm just curious, though: you seem to blithely assume that the American people are a nation of simpletons who can only think in grade-school stereotypes and react with knee-jerk reflexiveness to political/legal issues. What kind of snooty elitist attitude is that?
I could start with most of the people here. If you say Bush, they will act in a predictably knee jerk reaction. Many of my Elephant friends did the same with Clinton.
Everyone has buttons you can push if you know what those buttons are. Some of the smartest people are the easiest to push because they think they already have the world figured out.
bart: "However, think about this for a second. How many people know the first thing about FISA?"
The details of FISA are unimportant. The Administration said, when FISA was updated as part of the Patriot Act, that FISA provided it the tools it needed to electronically keep tabs on terrorist communications coming into this country. That’s all that needs to be stated. Again, according to this Administration, these laws, regardless of their detail, accomplish what needs to be done to protect the American public from this aspect of terroristic threats. To now claim, as this Administration is doing, that Feingold’s insisting these laws be complied with is a capitulation to the terrorists, is exceedingly and obviously deceitful. I think this is yet another example of the Administration’s hubris getting in the way of it’s seeing and understanding the political landscape it now finds itself. And I think it will properly pay the price for it.
The American people have, for many years, been watching cop shows. Law and Order, NYPD Blue, CSI, and all their siblings have taught us how the system works. It is our reality, more than the so-called reality shows.
The Republicans and Fox news have to break that well-conditioned perception of what is the law in America.
In the end, TV is our reality, and the cop shows have taught us about warrants and probable cause.
No other frame can compete with this well taught lesson.
3/22/06, 2:15pm:
Just got off the phone with Senator Feinstein's office.
Asked the phone-answerer why the Senator had yet taken a position on Feingold's censure motion. Was told that the Senator considers it premature to do so, in light of continuing investigations, and the Senator's key role in same, given her position on the Intelligence subcommittee.
Asked the phone-answerer if that subcommittee was not, in fact, tasked only with oversight of current eavesdropping programs, and did not have standing to inquire into previous eavesdropping. Was referred to Brian, a higher-level Feinstein staffer, for the answer to the above question.
Asked Brian the same question as above. Was told that, no, his understanding is that the subcommittee had standing to investigate the entire program, dating back to its inception.
Asked Brian if the 3 Democrats on that subcommittee had the power to subpeona witnesses. Was told that he did not have that information.
Asked Brian if there was someone in the office I could speak to who might have that information. Was told that, no, outside of the Senator herself, no one in the office would have that information.
Asked Brian if this did not seem to be a relevant subject, and worth knowing. Was told that, yes, it is worth knowing, and that he would look into it, and that I could call back tomorrow for the answer.
Asked Brian if the Senator was currently of the opinion that the President violated the law when he eavesdropped on Americans without a warrant. Was told that, yes, the Senator is of the opinion that the president broke the law and that said lawbreaking continues currently.
Asked Brian why, in light of the Senator's belief that the President broke the law, the Senator had not yet voiced support for the censure motion, considering the fact that the censure motion concerns only the President's lawbreaking. Was told that the Senator is not yet convinced that censuring the President is the most effective tactic currently available to cease the President's lawbreaking. Also was told that Brian, himself, had read Feingold's censure motion, and that it asserts many points in addition to the basic assertion that the President is in violation of the law, and that the Senator may or may not be comfortable supporting some of the additional points contained within Feingold's censure motion.
Asked Brian if the Senator would consider drafting a new motion to censure the President simply for violating the law, excluding from said motion all points found within Feingold's motion with which the Senator disagrees. Was told that, certainly, the Senator would keep such options open.
Asked Brian if the Senator considered the President's lawbreaking to be of a less-serious nature than the previous President's lawbreaking. Was told that, no, Brian did not believe the Senator would necessarily characterize the situation as such.
Asked Brian, in light of the above, why the Senator would not then, at this very moment, support a censure motion, considering her earlier support of the motion to censure the previous President. Was told by Brian that he was not aware that the Senator supported any such censure of the previous President.
Informed Brian that, in fact, the Senator had *introduced* the motion to censure the previous President. Was told by Brian that he had not known the above, but that certainly the Senator's motion must've been tactical in nature, in order to prevent the impeachment of the previous President.
Informed Brian that, in fact, the censure motion against the previous President was introduced by the Senator after the previous President had already been acquited in the impeachment trial. Was told by Brian that he had not been aware of that.
Advised Brian that he may want to ask around. Promised to call Brian tomorrow to hear from him as to whether or not the 3 Democrats on the Intelligence Subcommittee had the power to subpeona witnesses. Ended the call.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
At that point, it will be much easier for Democrats to hang "spying, lawbreaking, and cover-up" on the Republicans than it is now. I think it's less an evasion than a set-up.
That would be a brilliant strategy
but are you saying they want to "hang" that on the Republicans for partisans reasons, or they they object to it on principle?
n the end, TV is our reality, and the cop shows have taught us about warrants and probable cause.
No one gives a damn about "warrants and probable cause" when al Qaeda is on the line.
the cynic librarian said...
"The gist of my comments is the following: the Right continues to purvey the illusion that the country is at war--and given that it is at war, the President can assert these "constituionally given powers."
If Brezienski and you (in your earlier comments) are right, however, war has not really been declared. "use of force" yes, but that nowhere meets the definition of "war." As long as the Right continues to uphold this illusion that there is a "war," their assertions about Bush's NSA program will always carry some weight.
The question then becomes how to counter and undermine this idea--in terms which the public can understand--that there really is no war, there's simply a miliatry undertaking to stop a tactic (as Brezenski notes) called terrorism."
Congress is the only Government branch that can declare war and up to now has not done so. Until such time as they do we are not at war. That is the reason that Viet Nam was never officially a war but a police action.
Bart, your 'framing of the issue' stated the following:
"The Dems say listening in on al Qaeda telephone calls is illegal."
But there isn't a single Dem who has ever said that. Ever. Is there? So your framing is just an outright lie. Obviously so.
Here's one amateur's attempt at an alternative way to frame it:
Video of Bush stating, in Buffalo, that "Oh, by the way, any time we're talking about the Gov't using wiretaps, we're talking about getting a court order" (going by memory, but you know the quote.)
Underneath: "George Bush has admitted that, even as he spoke those words, he was eavesdropping on American citizens without a court order, in violation of the law."
"He lied. And he broke the law."
So there's one way to frame it -- He lied. He broke the law.
No mention of FISA. No legalese. The public doesn't have to know the details of the law, only that he broke the law.
And Repubs, in their congressional races, will have to answer the question: What was your response to Bush's illegal eavesdropping on American citizens? Were you a rubberstamp for the Prez, or did you fulfill your responsibilities of Congressional oversight?
They'll have to answer the former, which exposes them as ineffectual, ties them to Bush, who they're all desperately trying to run away from, and helps to nationalize their local race.
Here's the full Buffalo quote, btw, fwiw:
BUSH: Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
Bart, I have a couple questions. In the case of eavesdropping, it's obvious to me that the Republican view is that even though the administration might be breaking the law, its doing it for our own protection, so most people are going to be fairly forgiving of the it. The assumption of course requires us to trust that they are not breaking the law any further than the obvious lack of warrants, and that they would never use the power which they've claimed gives them the right to ignore FISA for any other purpose than to protect us. We also have to just trust that they will always keep our rights in mind whenever they tap another phone or whatever. All the president wants to do is go after our enemies and would never use the power for another purpose, even though he could according to his interpretation of the law.
Does that pretty much cover your view of the way the public will end up swallowing this pill? Republicans can make easy talking point sound-bites justifying the illegality, while the Dems have to explain the complexities of law in order to show how they think Bush should be censured or worse for what he's doing, so the republicans will hammer the dems at election time?
Why then do you think so many people think censure is called for if the president broke the law in deciding to ignore FISA and tap w/o warrants? I don't have the polls in front of me, but it seems to me there was even a question about impeachment over the issue, and a majority or nearly so thought impeachment was on the table if it could be shown that Bush broke the law in tapping w/o warrants. That doesn't seem to square with your sense of how the public will respond to this issue.
And I assume you don't think they are abusing the powers they've claimed in any way other than to protect us. Why are you so trusting? Would you feel the same way if a Democrat president did the same thing?
Why then did Bush say he didn't see a need to change any rules as he had all the power he needed to go after Al-quaida? Was he lying? Did he have some purpose in making a claim he obviously didn't believe himself? What if dem did the same thing? Would you be as forgiving? Should Americans overlook this obvious lie? What about Bush's claim that any time he talks about tapping phones we know the govt is getting the necessary warrants to do so? Was that a lie, or do you have another explanation? Do you think you sound at all like Clinton when you justify such staements?
When the AG made statements hinting at other programs that we don't even know about yet, do you think he meant something else? You say that everybody who has been briefed knows the president isn't eavesdropping on Americans. How do you know this? Why would you assume this is true even if they said it was? Why have they worked so hard to claim almost absolute power if they only intend to do things with it that they already could have done with the laws in place? As Bush said, he saw no need to change the laws as they gave him all the power he needed. Again, why would they want absolute executive power if all they want to do is stuff they already had the power to do?
I'm trying to understand how Republicans can be so trusting of govt? Conservative principles in the past included a healthy mistrust of power. Why have you suddenly grown so trusting of govt? Do you really think most Americans agree with you here? My sense is that most people feel the way the founding fathers did about executive power--that it nees to be limited. Do you really think it will be so difficult for dems to tap into our long history of mistrust of power? I think a very simple case against any president that disregards the need for warrants can be made, and can easily translate into easy to understand soundbites during a campaign. I know I would never trust a president who made such claims to power, even if I had voted for him, and regardless of what party he came from. For Republicans to suddenly think absolute power is just fine since it's their guy in office and the more power he has the better chance he has of staying in power is just downright scary, and it wont be hard to make that case to the public.
Your need to convince us that you are speaking for the majority sounds more like a need to reassure yourslef that that's the case. I don't think most Americans agree with you at all. I also welcome this debate, and look forwaqrd to it in the coming elections. We can argue all we want, but the polls will tell us who is right. I am quite confident the Dems will hammer Republicans over this issue.
Just when you think you can’t be surprised by the dishonesty, silliness, and immaturity of influential right-wingers like Glenn Reynolds they say something so ridiculous it takes your breath away.
Mr. Reynolds insists that a movement to CENSURE JIMMY CARTER is “no dumber than Russ Feingold’s”
This poor law professor can’t see the difference between the two. I’m speechless.
Advised Brian that he may want to ask around. Promised to call Brian tomorrow to hear from him as to whether or not the 3 Democrats on the Intelligence Subcommittee had the power to subpeona witnesses. Ended the call.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
Patrick - I love hearing about your calls to Sen. Feinstein's office every bit as much as I'm sure Brian hates receiving them. These calls matter, especially when one is as well-informed as Patrick is and therefore able to correct their myths and obfuscations.
anonymous:
It will provide an alternative strategy, however, if the censure contintues to have minimal senate support.
When they kill or "whitewash" the investigation, we will need to be ready to create a lot of noise.
The "setup" theory of MS Democratic indifference to Feingold's censure motions neglects the tiny little fact that if there's no Democratic outcry for investigations and/or censure (or no really visible such outcry), there won't be seen any "cover-up". If the investigations die quietly without protest, and if the censure motion fails with broad assent by the Democrats, it's hard to see how they can subsequently turn around and scream "Cover-up!". The message that is sent in ignoring the issues right now is "it's no big deal", so then there isn't any "cover-up", rather a decision on the part of the Democrats themselves that there's "no there there".....
So, if this is a "set-up", the DNC 'strategists' are being prety damn stoopid.
Cheers,
Jay C:
"can anyone explain why the Unclaimed Territory comments are timestamped 2 hours ahead of ET? Is the server located in Brazil or someplace?"
Doubtful that Blogspot's servers are in Brazil. However, Glenn Greenwald, our esteemed host, is.
Patrick Meighan:
Keep it up! Your calls are important, and your descriptions are funny to boot. I, too, called Feinstein's office, but it sounds like you were much more effective.
Anonymous:
"No one gives a damn about 'warrants and probable cause' when al Qaeda is on the line."
Bah ... nonsense! I care. Nobody in government has perfect knowledge, so "warrants and probable cause" are necessary to protect innocents from abuse.
Who was "on the line," anyway, at the DNC during Watergate?
Some obtuse moron (WSNBN) wrote a lie:
The Dems say listening in on al Qaeda telephone calls is illegal,...
Not surprisingly, this moron won't be able to find a single quote to back this assertion of his up.
So, my advice to the rest of the folks here: Plonk this moron, and scroll oast his outrageous drivel.
Cheers,
To those who have complaints with the Censure-impeachment effort, you have another forum to: There's an active discussion in New York discussing a New Constitution.
Bluntly, unless Congress takes action to censure and investigate these matters, there's a move afoot to lawfully revoke the powers of Congress which they refuse to assert. Here is the discussion on WNYC: [ Click ]
Fair warning to the RNC, Congressional Staffers and Members of Congress: If you don't wake up, we're going to lawfully revoke the power you're abusing and not asserting.
Oh, and if you think this isn't serious, the proposal and strategy is based on a former Supreme Court Clerk paper on this approach. He's now the Editor at Yale Law Review. Time to wake up -- the Congress needs to do its jobs.
Good stuff Glenn.
I'd like to make this request on polls, though. IMO - everyone should make more of an effort to refer to the ABA poll. They actually understood the Constitutional issues when they polled and even though the poll did not attempt to inform those polled about the issues, it was phrased to much more accurately assess what American's really believe on this matter, IMO.
The ABA press release and links in it to the poll and the the ABA task force are very overlooked IMO>
http://www.abanet.org/media/releases/news021006.html
That poll shows pretty clearly that an overwhelming majority of American's do NOT approve of the unilateral actions of the President. In addition, while I think you phrase the issues correctly and that no further investigation is needed for your point 1, the ABA link gives politicians who need it some additional support.
A bipartisan investigation by heavyweights has already been done by the ABA task force.
"The membership included a former Director of the FBI,a former general counsel of the CIA, a former general counsel of the NSA, former chairs of the ABA Standing Committee on Law and National Security, former federal prosecutors and others possessing great expertise in constitutional and national security law."
In essence, they pretty much broke it down as you did. THey said the President was not entitled to do what he is doing and they also and separately asked for an investigation into mechanics and abuses.
As to the President's "bring it on" (which has been so successful for him in the past) By contrast, the best Kmiec can say is that we should be unconcerned aboutlegality or illegality.
http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3317/1/1?TopicID=1
law professor Doug Kmiec, who stated in his testimony that we should not be concerned with the legality or illegality of the program but rather with “what is the appropriate course as we go forward.”
As to the discussion about a simple way describe the dems position, I can only give mine - no speaking for dems.
It is:
Get a warrant.
Longer?
If the Government is listening in on American citizen's phone calls, the Constitution says they BETTER have a warrant.
Not particularly long and drawn out. Now, in the sputtery responses, you can go into more detail. WHen I hear the, "not enough time" I have two answers. 1. You have three days AFTER you already start tapping - what more do you need and if you need more - why didn't some incompetent, inept, Not Quite Ready for Katrina Player - ask for it? 2. Says who? All Gonzales complained about was that awww - the applications are sometimes two inches thick or so.
Americans DO understand, "Get a warrant" (and don't have to understand FISA to get to that - and when FISA comes up later as a special court that makes it so easy to get the warrant that you don't even have to apply for 3 days after you start wiretapping - they get that too) and IMO they also understand that the correct answer to, "the President has to break the law and violate the Constitution to listen to al-Qaeda calls" is BULL! If you have al-Qaeda on the line, a judge is going to give you a warrant.
WHEN has the GOVT EVER HAD al-Qaeda "on the line" and been turned down (3 days later)?
Simple question - where's the answer?
uh huh.
Finally - this will, IMO, have a legal play out as well bc of the telecoms. NSA and the AG sure seem to have been using the telecoms. They get to do that two ways under existing law. 1. They show them the FISA warrant. 2. The AG provides his personal certification that no warrant is required (in general bc you are talking about foreign surveillance and not domestic)
Telecom lawsuits are already pending and IMO, when the telecoms are on notice, public notice, that the President is engaged in an illegal program, it is going to be much harder for them to rely on the certification. Like a waiver in a negligence case.
There are other opportunities too - and there is the fact that the Padilla case may set some of the groundrules for what the President can or cannot do vis a vis the Bill of Rights - but in the end, the case law already exists.
Granted, Youngstown pits the Exec and Legis branches and brings in the consideration of the various "sliding scales" of power. Yoo's only response to it was that the fact that "everywhere" is now a "battlefield" changes Youngstown.
I think that's bull, but in any event it doesn't matter. BC we have the "battlefield" case already and it is not a "Congress v. President" case. It is a People and the Bill of Rights v. President case and it took place in the civil war, in an area under declared martial law. And it holds that the claims of special Presidential war powers that might negate the Bill or Rights are spurious as long as the civil courts are open and operating.
War, actual real declared WAR on our OWN SOIL and a DECLARED STATE OF MARTIAL LAW notwithstanding, the President can not overlook the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments as long as civil courts are open and operating. Ex Part Milligan.
We're sure not anywhere near that point. So as long as the fist fight remains Congress and the President, it's going to be a political matter and a draw. But in the fight of the People v. the PResident - there is a clear legal winner. It's us. There will be a vehicle for taking those cases forward and if Congress and the President don't get their acts together, some good career people are looking at CRIMINAL penalties.
Really- NSA should be PUSHING the Exec to go under judicial supervision, bc they are the guys looking at felony convictions. So - we'll see what happens. But the message will keep getting out - that the program is illegal and the President and his staff are breaking the law, over and over, with impunity. And it is not right, and it is not necessary.
And when he says that he wants to hear who is ready to argue about "taking away the tools we need to fight terrorists" ok with me.
The best tools we have to fight terrorists are a free society and the Constitution and if he thinks anything else, there are plenty of countries he can try to lead where he does not have to swear an oath to the Consitution. Go for it.
Here, as the court in Milligan said, all the power that is needed to fight adverse interests is already found in the Constitution and the proof of that is their concerted and repeating efforts to attack and overturn it.
The Constitution IS the best tool for fighting terrorists and protecting Americans.
Another shot at that ABA link
http://www.abanet.org/media/releases/news021006.html
Glenn,
I live in Colorado, and read in your post that Salazar is one of the fence-sitters, so I fired off this email to him. Probably not the most diplomatic email I've sent to a representative, but I had to vent:
Senator Salazar,
Since I know you won't read this note personally, let me get to the point:
SUPPORT SENATOR FEINGOLD'S CENSURE RESOLUTION
For my own benefit, I will now explain why you should support Senator Feingold's resolution.
1. President Bush has already admitted that he ordered wiretapping of US citizens without a court order - NO INVESTIGATION IS NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THIS FACT. His admission means that he has violated the FISA act. This fact is all you need to support censure.
2. The illegal wiretapping of US citizens continues a pattern of illegal acts conducted by the current administration, including the conduct of war in Iraq without Congressional authorization, unilateral abrogation of international treaties approved by Congress, and leaking the identity of a covert CIA operative and her network of WMD sources, to name a few.
3. The administration is again beating the drums of war in preparation for a military conflict with Iran, and perhaps later, Syria, using the same baseless, trumped-up charges and propaganda used to bring war to Iraq. How many mistakes of the size of Iraq can we afford?
The American people have seen trillions of our tax dollars squandered or given away to special interests, thousands of our citizens' lives lost, irreplaceable natural resources lost forever, precious civil liberties abridged, and the good will of people around the world cast aside, due to the actions of this president and his administration, all without the approval of American taxpayers. These are FACTS.
When does it stop? When does the "era of personal responsibility" begin for this president? Where is the vaunted accountability promised by our CEO president? Will you, willingly or through inaction, allow this adminstration to continue to systematically dismantle our 200 year-old democracy, in the span of two presidential terms? Where are the checks and balances? Is the constitution "just a piece of paper", or is it a set of laws that both you and the president have sworn to uphold?
How can we ever repay the trillions of dollars of national debt generated by this president's lopsided tax cuts, military overspending, and corporate cronyism? How can we ever restore balance between receipts and expenses in our budget, now that the treasury has been emptied, and our futures mortgaged? Is it even numerically possible, at this point?
Can you live with the consequences of supporting legislation that continues to funnel middle-class tax receipts to the wealthy, incents corporations to move offshore and benefit without paying taxes, endorses predatory credit practices, abets the dismantling of our manufacturing sector, permits invasion of our privacy, and creates taxpayer-funded subsidies for already wealthy corporations? Can you live with the mass unemployment, homelessness, despair, and unrest that will come, if you and your colleagues continue to support the policies of this administration?
How do you think your obituary will read? Will you be remembered for serving the interests of your constituents - ALL of your constituents? Or will you be remembered as a willing member of the Congress that presided over the destruction of a once-proud 200 year-old republic, and the economies of so many nations that depend on a healthy US economy?
What does it take, Senator, to get you and your colleagues to stand up and mouth the simple truth that President Bush broke the law, and that censure is the least we can do to prevent further abuses of power, and further national decline? Are you waiting for the crowds of shills to assemble, chanting "Rule of Law!"?
If you and your fellow Senators get one more term in office by dodging this issue, is it worth it, if the abuse of power continues?
If you need polls to tell you how to vote, fine - the polls support censure. But you shouldn't need the polls to tell you what is in the best interests of all Americans, including those myopic corporations seeking to extract every last nickel of our national wealth. Vote with Senator Feingold to censure President Bush. Our future depends on it.
Sincerely,
Anonymous:
"Get a warrant."
I couldn't have said it better myself. And that goes for the rest of your comment as well. Thanks.
lewp said...
Bart, your 'framing of the issue' stated the following:
"The Dems say listening in on al Qaeda telephone calls is illegal."
But there isn't a single Dem who has ever said that. Ever. Is there? So your framing is just an outright lie. Obviously so.
I have told you why I and apparently Congress believes that the NSA Program cannot meet the FISA warrant requirement. Therefore, the Dems are saying that the NSA Program is illegal if they claim it falls under FISA.
Here's one amateur's attempt at an alternative way to frame it:
Video of Bush stating, in Buffalo, that "Oh, by the way, any time we're talking about the Gov't using wiretaps, we're talking about getting a court order" (going by memory, but you know the quote.)
Underneath: "George Bush has admitted that, even as he spoke those words, he was eavesdropping on American citizens without a court order, in violation of the law."
"He lied. And he broke the law."
So there's one way to frame it -- He lied. He broke the law.
That is probably the best way you could frame it. However, when the GOP pounds that this program listens in on al Qaeda calls to the US, then you appear to be arguing that we need warrants to spy on al Qaeda.
I am willing to have that argument legally and politically.
And Repubs, in their congressional races, will have to answer the question: What was your response to Bush's illegal eavesdropping on American citizens?
That one is easy. I will call the claim that the NSA Program is targeting American citizens a lie and start quoting nearly every single Dem who actually knows about the program.
Then I will hammer home again that we are listening to al Qaeda and say we do not need warrants to spy on al Qaeda.
Were you a rubberstamp for the Prez, or did you fulfill your responsibilities of Congressional oversight?
Easier. I am proud to support the President's program for listening in on al Qaeda as is nearly every member of Congress from both parties as well as Mr. Feingold.
They'll have to answer the former, which exposes them as ineffectual, ties them to Bush, who they're all desperately trying to run away from, and helps to nationalize their local race.
I cannot think of an issue I would more rather nationalize the race around.
Armagednoutahere said...
Bart, I have a couple questions. In the case of eavesdropping, it's obvious to me that the Republican view is that even though the administration might be breaking the law, its doing it for our own protection, so most people are going to be fairly forgiving of the it. The assumption of course requires us to trust that they are not breaking the law any further than the obvious lack of warrants, and that they would never use the power which they've claimed gives them the right to ignore FISA for any other purpose than to protect us. We also have to just trust that they will always keep our rights in mind whenever they tap another phone or whatever. All the president wants to do is go after our enemies and would never use the power for another purpose, even though he could according to his interpretation of the law.
Does that pretty much cover your view of the way the public will end up swallowing this pill?
Not quite. Both the law and I believe the people believe that the NSA should not have to obtain warrants to listen in on al Qaeda.
If you could actually prove that Bush, like Nixon and Clinton, were actually using the state to conduct warantless spying on political opponents or common citizens, you would have a much stronger case. I would join you. However, not a single political opponent of the President who knows about this program makes any such claim. I trust that they would not forego any opportunity to use such a fact to regain power if such a fact existed.
Why then do you think so many people think censure is called for if the president broke the law in deciding to ignore FISA and tap w/o warrants?
When the question is not framed in the lie about spying on the American people, censure is only supported by the Dem base. The Dem base would like to impeach the President for any number of real and imagined sins, the foremost of which is rendering them a minority party.
And I assume you don't think they are abusing the powers they've claimed in any way other than to protect us. Why are you so trusting? Would you feel the same way if a Democrat president did the same thing?
Yes. I fully trust the members of my party in congressional oversight will not allow a Dem president any breathing room. The fact that every single Dem who has been briefed on this program strongly supports it is good enough evidence for me.
Why then did Bush say he didn't see a need to change any rules as he had all the power he needed to go after Al-quaida? Was he lying?
No. He was counseled by his attorneys that FISA simply does not abridge his constitutional powers. Exactly why would he bother to do anything else but what he did - consult with Congress and act?
What if dem did the same thing? Would you be as forgiving?
I would be pleasantly surprised that a Dem had the initiative and nads to act decisively against an enemy. I am so used to Dems during my lifetime avoiding taking action against our nation's enemies that I have about given up all hope of seeing it.
Do you think you sound at all like Clinton when you justify such staements?
If you have read my posts here, you know you will not hear any "It depends what the meaning of "is" is" hairsplitting from me. An act is either legal or illegal.
When the AG made statements hinting at other programs that we don't even know about yet, do you think he meant something else?
I think he is being a cautious attorney. However, I would hope the United States has many more active intelligence gathering programs which have yet to be disclosed to the enemy by the NYT.
You say that everybody who has been briefed knows the president isn't eavesdropping on Americans. How do you know this?
Because I trust the liberal Dems who have been briefed about this program to ask hundreds of questions and raise holy hell if anything close to the Clintons reviewing the FBI files of political opponents was going on.
Why would you assume this is true even if they said it was?
I am a defense attorney. I believe in that quaint notion of presumption of innocence absent evidence of guilt.
I'm trying to understand how Republicans can be so trusting of govt? Conservative principles in the past included a healthy mistrust of power. Why have you suddenly grown so trusting of govt?
After the roasting the Clintons, the IRS, ATF and the FBI during the 90s, exactly when did conservatives become trusting of government?
The critical difference between us is that we do not believe in extending our rights as citizens to our country's enemies. In my mind, the enemy has no rights. If we can legally kill them on site, exactly why should I give a damn about warrants?
Do you really think most Americans agree with you here?
A large majority, yes.
My sense is that most people feel the way the founding fathers did about executive power--that it nees to be limited.
Once again, government exercise of power against US citizens needs to be constantly monitored and restrained.
Government exercise of power against the enemy and its American agents should have nearly no limits. They should receive the full measure of hell we can muster.
Do you really think it will be so difficult for dems to tap into our long history of mistrust of power?
When nearly every Dem claims to support the NSA Program, yes, it would nearly be impossible.
Your need to convince us that you are speaking for the majority sounds more like a need to reassure yourslef that that's the case.
Not at all. The popular support for the Ports deal was the inverse of what it is for the NSA Program. That didn't prevent me from attacking opposition to the ports deal as shameful racist and xenophobic fear mongering against one of the country's bets allies in the ME. I also recognized that I would lose.
And when he says that he wants to hear who is ready to argue about "taking away the tools we need to fight terrorists" ok with me.
The best tools we have to fight terrorists are a free society and the Constitution and if he thinks anything else, there are plenty of countries he can try to lead where he does not have to swear an oath to the Consitution. Go for it.
Here, as the court in Milligan said, all the power that is needed to fight adverse interests is already found in the Constitution and the proof of that is their concerted and repeating efforts to attack and overturn it.
The Constitution IS the best tool for fighting terrorists and protecting Americans.
This is one of the points that I have yet to have seen poured on throughout the whole debate. Thank you, anonymous, for stating it effectively. I have felt so strongly about it that it has been hard to verbalize.
If "America" is so "Great" and "Strong" and "Freedom" is so "Powerful" an "Idea" then why are we abandoning them to......
I don't even know what we are trying to do.
Apparently it's not to fight the folks that caused 9/11 cause we kind of backed out of Afghanistan (remember that country?) just about when we had everyone there whupped. We almost caught some members of al-Qaeda there, even.
Why is it so hard to believe in the Constitution and its laws being effective in the fight against "terra?" I believe in them enough to think that we can win this damn struggle withough selling our souls to the convenience of autocracy.
To the person who typed the really long e-mail to the senator from Colorado - I think you are missing the point. The thing that makes this whole issue so effective is that it is so focused and easy to understand. The president paid lip service to this one particular law and proceeded to lie about it, and break it, and then has publicly admitted it. That is all this censure motion is about, in fact, in word. That is what makes this a rallying point. You don't have to have a problem with the entire presidency, and I can't believe that there aren't some Republicans out there - where are the "Law and Order" types? - who aren't behind this clear violation of the law, and abnegation, indeed almost a full-fledged repudiation, of the Constitution.
To paraphrase Einstein - you cannot simultaneously condemn and propogate totalitarianism (ok, ok. that's why he had a 210 IQ and I can't get out of college).
Thanks for all your hard work, Glenn.
Oh, and Bart - I appreciate all the work you have put into being the Devil's Advocate in this comments section, and the civility with which you have responded to criticisms and people who have made some tacit assumptions about your point of view. If I am not incorrect, you seem to be basically sympathetic to the theory behind the censure resolution, but against it in a pragmatic way? I could be totally wrong here. And it seems a shame that I should have to make a point of displaying gratitude for some basic human civility and reasonable discourse, but ... thanks.
N.
bart - why do you think wiretapping of al-Qaeda can not be done under FISA? I missed that?
When has there ever been an instance of "al-Qaeda's on the line" where wiretap approval, in particular and including the retroactive approval under FISA, was denied?
eavesdropping on American citizens?
That one is easy. I will call the claim that the NSA Program is targeting American citizens a lie and start quoting nearly every single Dem who actually knows about the program.
I believe they say they don't actually know much about the program, but more importantly, anyone can say anything about the Program. For example, the President can and has said what a heckuva job Brownie did, and that he actually was getting warrants, and that we are going to "grow our way" out of 9 trillion in debt while reducing taxes on the most wealthy at the same time.
There is absolutely no difference whatsoever from having the President say the NSA program, even though it is not supervised by the warrant process, is so good and kind and wonderful that it will only end up wiretapping al-Qaeda (despite the already admitted wiretap of US phones) and saying:
Oh, btw, the police departments are good and kind and wonderful too and we are going to do away with warrants for them to wiretap, break into your home, and arrest you.
Bc, after all, they are "only targeting criminals."
We know that works so well, we don't need anything like a check and balance of judicial supervision.
Yep - Police are only targeting criminals, so lets give up due process and warrant protections and wth, let's give up trials too. They are only "after" criminals, we don't really need something all "judicial-ly" like a trial. Cuz they only target criminals.
Really.
Gosh- how could the drafters of the COnsitution have missed such a big point.
As long as the Govt "says" so, it "is" so. Like when we had the mission in Iraq accomplished.
I hope you are the guy I get to debate with bart.
Hugs.
Then I will hammer home again that we are listening to al Qaeda and say we do not need warrants to spy on al Qaeda.
lol -
about Bart's entry above mine there -
oops -
sorry for being way off base about your point of view, Bart. But my gratitude still stands.
N.
The censure resolution is important to demonstrate to an electorate that some members of congress are willing to stand up to a radioactive Presidents illegal activities.
I only hope Democratic Senators will vote for this resolution. Activists must do all they can to force them to be strong, in spite of themselves. I do not believe the resolution will pass, do to non-support by Republicans.
However, a clear line will be drawn in the sand, for an electorate desperate for a change in direction. It must be shown to these Senators which side of the line they should be on.
The actual resolution of this illegal activity, as pointed out by jao will be in the judiciary. Feigolds resolution points, like a veteran hunting dog, to criminal activity. As Dick Cheney can attest, you need to pay attention to where you are standing.
Nick, I'm the person from Colorado who wrote the *really* long comment. Let me explain (briefly) why I think the three numbered points in my comment are all pertinent.
1. I think this is the one you agree with - Bush admits he ordered wiretaps without a court order and without informing the FISA court - so he broke the law.
2. Bush has broken the law before, during his tenure in office, so there is a pattern of law-breaking.
3. If Congress doesn't censure Bush or otherwise convey that his illegal actions must cease, he has no incentive to stop here.
Sorry for the long post earlier - like I said, I had to vent!
It's bed time again for Bart.
Nobody in their right mind would believe the ABA poll. It is ridiculously slanted.
You might as well get a poll commissioned by used car salesmen.
Lawyers (sorry guys)have extremely low trust levels,so it is not a believable commodity to sell.
Also, there are far more polls that show a majority easily support Bush on this issue.
Add Patty Murray to the list of scared and cowardly Dem senators hiding behind the "I'm concerned about the wiretap program but we need more investigation first" excuse:
Patty Murray's Reply to My Email to Support Censure
Did they all get together in the senate cloak room and decide to go with this talking point?
Shame on them for taking the easy way out and ducking their responsibility, and assuming that we're all this stupid.
New AP interview with Specter. You know Pat Roberts is a hack when even the fairly hackish Arlen Specter criticizes him for not engaging in oversight. (But then, of course, claims that he's not actually criticizing Roberts.) The article doesn't mention the censure issue.
What we see is the bizarre spectacle of Congress trying to regulate a program that it knows nothing about, and on which the administration doesn't want to give it any information. But if Feingold's resolution has at least shamed Specter into stating the obvious to the press ("They want to do just as they please, for as long as they can get away with it"), it will have accomplished its goal of getting the administration's arrogance and power-grabbing back into the news.
Anonymous said:
"You might as well get a poll commissioned by used car salesmen.
Lawyers (sorry guys)have extremely low trust levels,so it is not a believable commodity to sell."
Let me see, Anon, should I allow my view to be swayed by someone whose only critique is that they distrust lawyers, or should I instead listen to:
"a former Director of the FBI,a former general counsel of the CIA, a former general counsel of the NSA, former chairs of the ABA Standing Committee on Law and National Security, former federal prosecutors and others possessing great expertise in constitutional and national security law"
Hmm...I'm thinking...OK, here's my take, Anon. The only polls that are ridiculously slanted are the ones that do not point out the salient facts before asking for a response.
Polls that ask questions like "Do you believe the president's wiretapping program makes America safer" presupposes that the respondent is aware of the full wiretapping story, and specifically avoids mentioning that:
1. The wiretaps were ordered without FISA court permission or notification.
2. The wiretaps listened in on American citizens, which is illegal, without FISA authorization.
Any poll that shows support for Bush's wiretap program based on questions that exploit the ignorance of average Americans is illegitimate, period.
And any poll that evades the *illegality* of Bush's wiretapping program is slanted by definition, because it seeks to shift attention from the real issue.
myxzptlk
Bart wrote (a):
I am a defense attorney. I believe in that quaint notion of presumption of innocence absent evidence of guilt.
and shortly after (b):
The critical difference between us is that we do not believe in extending our rights as citizens to our country's enemies. In my mind, the enemy has no rights. If we can legally kill them on site, exactly why should I give a damn about warrants?
Upon reading quote (a), but before reading quote (b), I was thinking about the selective use of the presumption of innocence among supporters of The Regime. Silly me.
Of course, quote (b) solves all that, and places Bart and co. in the same moral company as Osama and the 9/11 hijackers. Kill the enemy. There are no innocents. Ask no questions.
No point arguing the niceties of law or constitution with such persons.
anonymous sez:
Americans DO understand, "Get a warrant" (and don't have to understand FISA to get to that - and when FISA comes up later as a special court that makes it so easy to get the warrant that you don't even have to apply for 3 days after you start wiretapping - they get that too) and IMO they also understand that the correct answer to, "the President has to break the law and violate the Constitution to listen to al-Qaeda calls" is BULL! If you have al-Qaeda on the line, a judge is going to give you a warrant.
Please, please, PLEASE, folks.....
The FISA law concerns "electronic surveillance", and for purposes of the act (50 USC 1800 et.seq), that doesn't cover foreign "targets". As has always been the case, the NSA is free to snoop Russian diplomats, even Russian Duma members, and al Qaeda agents abroad, without so much as a warrant (if they can). The Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to foreign "persons" while being snooped overseas, no matter who they're talking to (including people in the U.S.), nor does FISA. Members of all Qaeda overseas have no rights under the U.S. Constitution.
You don't NEED to even ASK for a warrant if you have a tap on a (foreign) al Qaeda phone! It's all legal, and has been since wiretaps were invented.
So please, folks, let's shoot down this "reframing" as utter nonsense even by the plain language of the law, whenever some Republican sycophant tries to use it as an "arguing point"..... This goes doubly for HWSNBN, who thinks that when Democrats (and some conservatives too) ask for adherence to FISA, they're insisting that al Qaeda not be tapped at all, above and beyond just getting an unneeded retroactive warrant ... a proposition that is so intellectually dishonest as to cause any honest proponent of such to turn crimson.
Cheers,
Glenn Reynolds writes:
Well, I actually think that Glenn Greenwald wants to be me, though if so he'd be well advised to stop lifting his stuff from Tom Tomorrow.
"The Tale of Two Glenns" by Glenn Reynolds should end with "It is a far, far stupider thing I wrote than I have ever written."
That a buffonishly laughable fifth rate cultist hack like Glenn Reynolds, who has never written an inspired sentence in his life, would think anyone would want to be him is funny enough in itself.
But Glenn Greenwald? One of the few most brilliant political observers now writing? What a hoot!
I begin to see why Reynolds is such a Bush cultist. Perhaps being deranged is a requirement for entry to that particular club.
And the fact that Glenn Reynolds is so unaware of reality that he doesn't know how pathetic that statement makes him look just makes it that much funnier.
Does Comedy Central link to Glenn Reynold's site? If not, they should, unless they want to miss out on some thighslappingly hilarious material.
bart said...
"Not quite. Both the law and I believe the people believe that the NSA should not have to obtain warrants to listen in on al Qaeda.
If you could actually prove that Bush, like Nixon and Clinton, were actually using the state to conduct warantless spying on political opponents or common citizens, you would have a much stronger case. I would join you. However, not a single political opponent of the President who knows about this program makes any such claim. I trust that they would not forego any opportunity to use such a fact to regain power if such a fact existed."
You keep saying that Bart and yet you continue to ignore the available evidence and continue to come back with the same tired statement.
Whistleblower Says NSA Violations Bigger
UPI
Tuesday 14 February 2006
Washington - A former NSA employee said Tuesday there is another ongoing top-secret surveillance program that might have violated millions of Americans' Constitutional rights.
Russell D. Tice told the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations he has concerns about a "special access" electronic surveillance program that he characterized as far more wide-ranging than the warrentless wiretapping recently exposed by the New York Times but he is forbidden from discussing the program with Congress.
Tice said he believes it violates the Constitution's protection against unlawful search and seizures but has no way of sharing the information without breaking classification laws. He is not even allowed to tell the congressional intelligence committees - members or their staff - because they lack high enough clearance.
By Barton Gellman, Dafna Linzer and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, February 5, 2006; A01
The Bush administration refuses to say -- in public or in closed session of Congress -- how many Americans in the past four years have had their conversations recorded or their e-mails read by intelligence analysts without court authority. Two knowledgeable sources placed that number in the thousands; one of them, more specific, said about 5,000.
The program has touched many more Americans than that. Surveillance takes place in several stages, officials said, the earliest by machine. Computer-controlled systems collect and sift basic information about hundreds of thousands of faxes, e-mails and telephone calls into and out of the United States before selecting the ones for scrutiny by human eyes and ears.
Successive stages of filtering grow more intrusive as artificial intelligence systems rank voice and data traffic in order of likeliest interest to human analysts. But intelligence officers, who test the computer judgments by listening initially to brief fragments of conversation, "wash out" most of the leads within days or weeks.
And as for Democrats not speaking up:
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 10, 2006; A04
Members of the Senate subcommittee -- which, along with Roberts and Rockefeller, includes Republicans Mike DeWine (Ohio), Orrin G. Hatch (Utah) and Christopher S. Bond (Mo.) and Democrats Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) --
WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SHARE what they learn with the other eight members of the intelligence panel, according to rules the White House has proposed.
So if they can't even share what they learn with other members of the Intel committee how are they going to speak to the public about it.
Bart, a defense lawyer, says:
"After the roasting the Clintons, the IRS, ATF and the FBI during the 90s, exactly when did conservatives become trusting of government?
The critical difference between us is that we do not believe in extending our rights as citizens to our country's enemies. In my mind, the enemy has no rights. If we can legally kill them on site, exactly why should I give a damn about warrants?"
Who is talking about the attacks on the Clintons? (And you flatter the Republicans and/or youself if you consider those purely partisan attacks as being part of the "conservative tradition" of distrust of government.) The questioner you responded to raised a valid point, one I have asked of Bush supporters in my own family, and, as with them, you offer no answer, in fact, you dodge the answer with your rhetorical sophistry. If you so distrust the government, as a matter of political philosophy, and as the founders themselves did, why are you so willing NOW to simply accept the President's claims? Why are you so ready to believe his uncorroborated claims that he is ONLY listening in on terrorists? Why do you not react with normal suspicion to his refusal to submit to Congressional oversight on the NSA wiretapping program, or to to his refusal to obtain warrants for his wiretapping requests, as required by law?
As for the second part of your quote above, I guess this means you don't really believe in the unalienable rights of Man--all men--endowed upon all at birth. I guess this means you only believe in the legalistic rights rationed out to we "lucky" citizens of American, but to be hoarded and denied to all others.
Let me ask you, if you believe, as you claim, in the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, then how can you countenance the imprisonment and abuse of captives at Guantanamo and in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere througout the American Gulag--imprisonment without recourse to appeal, without supporting evidence of guilt--how can you stomach the imprisonment of persons many of whom have been alleged to have been picked up in dragnets, or turned over for bounty money by Afghani warlords? Don't you presume THEIR innocence, until proof is shown otherwise? Oh, no...they're "the enemy," so we don't allow them the same "unalienable rights of Man" as we enjoy...and, in fact, we can simply kill them on sight if we choose.
As to this "presumption of innocence" which you selectively employ in your defense of the President's freedom to wiretap persons unknown and uncounted without warrants, this is a presumption for the courtroom, where a defendant has been charged with a crime; I don't believe there is any such presumption as regards the actions of the President, at least insofar as it would remove him from Congressional oversight in his actions, especially those actions which at least appear to violate the Constitution and the law.
If we were to prosecute Bush in a court of law for his actions, then he certainly is owed a presumption of innocence, and the bill of particulars against him would have to be proved. However, when Bush admits to having wiretapped thousands of phonecalls, in violation of FISA, and based on--charitably--the dubious rationale of "inherent authority," he deserves no such presumption: we must assume first that he is overstepping his authority and we must subject him to public scrutiny and oversight through the agency of Congress.
I think that one of the problems is that practically half of the Democratic senators have their eye on the presidency in '08, and they're worried about giving the Repubs ammo for "swift-boat" type ads. I can hear the ads now (cue sinister music):
"Since 9-11, President Bush has been working non-stop to win the war on terrorism. To do this, he needs the best intelligence possible. But Senator (whoever) actually voted to censure President Bush for eavesdropping on al Qaeda. Do you want this man in charge of protecting your family?"
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who buy into this type of nonsense. That's why the Dems need to be out there every day, united, getting the message out. Instead of being afraid of "swift-boat" type ads, we've gotta preempt 'em.
The Dems only have themselves to blame. They let the Reps frame this misadventure in Iraq and Afghanistan as a war, without really declaring a war. Now they have to deal with the illusion that there's really a war going on, not a "police action."
the cynic librarian said...
"The Dems only have themselves to blame. They let the Reps frame this misadventure in Iraq and Afghanistan as a war, without really declaring a war. Now they have to deal with the illusion that there's really a war going on, not a "police action."
The Dems could challenge it if they had the guts to do it, but I doubt if they will. They could easily point out that no war has been declared by Congress which makes Bush's war power claims false, null, and void.
You should read Paul Craig Roberts essay this morning at Counterpunch.
"Hollow Nation" Americans don't live here anymore
gris lobo: I agree with you and Roberts. I do, though, think that a strategy to undermine the illusion about the "war" is not as simple as you suggest. The misundertsanding has ingrained itself into the public through repetitive use in MSM, Dem and Rep rhetoric, and everyday usage. I do not think that the American public is in any condition to be educated about the semantic difference between use of force and war.
On the other hand, I do think there's enough people who know they've been lied to, manipulated, and deceived to perhaps take it out on the Reps in the upcoming elections. Such resentment originates in the disposition to common sense that thankfully has not yet died within the private sphere that most Americans now ingabit.
ChiTom said...
Bart wrote (a):
I am a defense attorney. I believe in that quaint notion of presumption of innocence absent evidence of guilt.
and shortly after (b):
The critical difference between us is that we do not believe in extending our rights as citizens to our country's enemies. In my mind, the enemy has no rights. If we can legally kill them on site, exactly why should I give a damn about warrants?
Upon reading quote (a), but before reading quote (b), I was thinking about the selective use of the presumption of innocence among supporters of The Regime. Silly me.
Of course, quote (b) solves all that, and places Bart and co. in the same moral company as Osama and the 9/11 hijackers. Kill the enemy. There are no innocents. Ask no questions.
The presumption of innocence and every other constitutional right applies to American citizens, not to foreign enemy combatants. The fact I even need to explain this obvious difference speaks volumes.
In every single war which we have waged, the enemy either surrenders unconditionally or is killed. There are no lawyers, no constitutional rights and no quarter.
Time to get serious people.
gris lobo: Thinking about your comments, I came up with following "ad":
Picture: An intimidating graphic of an "eavesdropper", maybe a still from "The Conversation"
Text under graphic: To the Senate, AG Gonzales said, "There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq." [citation]
[space]
Then why does the President want to take away your rights, Listen to your phone calls, open your mail, and search your home without a warrant?
For more info call: ###-###-####
-------------
Just an idea...
Gris Lobo said...
You keep saying that Bart and yet you continue to ignore the available evidence and continue to come back with the same tired statement.
Whistleblower Says NSA Violations Bigger
UPI
Tuesday 14 February 2006
Washington - A former NSA employee said Tuesday there is another ongoing top-secret surveillance program that might have violated millions of Americans' Constitutional rights.
Russell D. Tice told the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations he has concerns about a "special access" electronic surveillance program that he characterized as far more wide-ranging than the warrentless wiretapping recently exposed by the New York Times but he is forbidden from discussing the program with Congress.
Tice said he believes it violates the Constitution's protection against unlawful search and seizures but has no way of sharing the information without breaking classification laws. He is not even allowed to tell the congressional intelligence committees - members or their staff - because they lack high enough clearance.
The traitor Tice is full of crap.
1) He offers no evidence, merely his opinion.
2) There is no evidence that he was even part of the program.
3) Tice could have gone to the AG, Justice or the heads of the Intel committees, who have been briefed on this program from the beginning. Instead, he went straight to the NYT.
4) Currently, Tice can go to the subcommittees of both intel committees who have access to the program.
5) Most likely, Tice wants to pull an Ollie and get immunity for anything he tells the subcommittees and the subcommittees have told him no. The man is the subject of a criminal investigation.
Believe it or not, I'm actually with Bart on the issue of 'presumption of innocence' here: it does apply in strictly legal terms to American citizens and not foreign nationals (who by definition are subject to their home nation's laws, whatever they may be). Fine so far as it goes.
Sadly though, Bart again falls back on the familiar refrain of "we're at war". At war with exactly who, where, and to what end is something neither he nor President Bush nor anyone sounding the same gong seems to be able to state with any precision. But then I suppose Oceania had the same problem with Eastasia until the Inner Party got rid of Aaronson, Jones and Rutherford and they invented Emmanuel Goldstein.
Similarly, we have yet to hear them deal with the troubling assertion by the Administration that it can designate anyone (including American citizens) as an 'enemy combatant', thereby stripping them of their Constitutional rights.
I trust Bart, as a defense attorney, you have given at least some consideration to this.
gris lobo: See edits to the "ad" below:
Text under graphic: On February 6, 2006, the top prosecutor of the United States, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, told Senators: "There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq." [Transcipt of testimony before the US Senate Judiciary Committee, in Washington Post, February 6]
[space]
Then why do President Bush and the Republican Congress want to take away your rights, listen to your phone calls, open your mail, and search your home without a warrant?
Worried? You should be. Call (608) 831-1308 [Feingold's office; he needs to get a national 1-800 or 1-888 phone number]
Did anyone see Feingold on Jon Stewart last night? He was very warmly received and I think Stewart went out of his way to show how much he admired him for his stance and put down the other Democrats for not supporting him.
Arne - you didn't understand my comment on al-Qaeda on the line and warrants. You are absolutely correct that warrants are not required to wiretap foreign based sources, whether al-Qaeda or, for that matter, Tony Blair.
However, the "Rove" talking point was that is should be equally ok to wiretap American citizens on American soil - without a warrant - if they have "al-Qaeda on the line." That was the point as to the fact that if you have American citizens "reporting in" to al-Qaeda - you are going to get a warrant for the American's wiretap and it is ridiculous to pretend you shouldn't get a warrant for the US wiretap. They can go ahead and start immediately and have 3 days to get the warrant.
bart - you are doing duck and dodge and straw man arguments.
The presumption of innocence and every other constitutional right applies to American citizens, not to foreign enemy combatants. The fact I even need to explain this obvious difference speaks volumes.
In every single war which we have waged, the enemy either surrenders unconditionally or is killed. There are no lawyers, no constitutional rights and no quarter.
Time to get serious people.
Not so much. On an actual battlefield in a declared war where folks are shooting at each other, there certainly are no lawyers. In a "hostilities" situation, taking place in urban and civilian areas the Geneva Conventions, UCMJ etc. have absolutely always made provisions for people to prove they are not enemy combatants and be dealt with in a manner administrated by lawful parameters, including, without limitation, the fact that lawyers and tribunals are indeed involved. In addition, many of the actions and activities in which our military and CIA have been involved - roundups, shakedowns and roustings of people from their homes - very often the wrong persons from the wrong homes - are subject to very different rules than battlefield rules and do, under the applicable treaties, conventions and UCMJ involve hearings,etc. FInally - when our soldier are acting as, in essence, "police force" because of their occupier status or bc of their "support" status to the local govt, there are indeed rules.
You know these things I'm pretty darn sure - why so disingenous?
WHy deliberately comingle and obfuscate?
Now, to take all of those inaccurate statements and then to say that those same "no quarter" rules apply to US citizens on US soil is not only wrong, it has been to court all the way up to the Supreme Court and been found to be wrong - and it was found to be wrong EVEN WHEN this nation was AT WAR and that war was taking place right here in this country.
We have always had traitors, destruction cultists, anarchists, whacked out groups of even domestic origin intent on doing things like blowing up nuclear facilities, etc. The existence of nutcases and evil people has not been the reason to abandon the Constitution before and there is nothing that changes that. 9/11 did change a lot of things - but not the intrinsic value of the Constitution and the fact that America under a "ConstitutionEZ" format where the President deletes what he doesn't like is not America.
As to:
The traitor Tice is full of crap.
What is your evidence that HE is the "traitor" and "full of crap" as opposed to the DIRECT AND ACKNOWLEDGED evidence that President Bush has betrayed the Constitution (in so many ways but starting with) by violating US Citizens Fourth Amendment rights? I mean - we KNOW Bush has been "full of it" don't we? Based on evidence --- Mission Accomplished; hiding the Curveball and Chalabi sourcing from Congress and the State Dept, eating Birthday cake while Katrina drowned and then lieing and saying he just plain had "no idea" such a thing could happen or was going on while he played guitar, etc.
On an objective basis, how do you begin to say there is anywhere near as much evidence that Tice is a traitor and full of it than Bush? That dog won't hunt and just possibly got skunked on its way back home.
1) He offers no evidence, merely his opinion.
You mean - like when we went to war in Iraq. ;-) Seriously, he is not allowed to "offer evidence" at this point. All the obsessive, counterproductive "secrecy" and classifications.
2) There is no evidence that he was even part of the program.And there is also no evidence that he was not a part of "the program" or that the particular claims he is making are limited to the existing illegal program to which the President has NOW admitted --- Gonzales has pretty much all but fessed up that there are OTHER likely illegal programs also in the offing - and we pretty much know that they tried to get the FBI to bite on an illegal warrantless searches of US Citizens program too.
3) Tice could have gone to the AG, Justice or the heads of the Intel committees, who have been briefed on this program from the beginning. Instead, he went straight to the NYT.
a. It is the AG's program - how do you go to the AG to complain about an illegal program HE IS RUNNING? It's cute when you tell "other" people to get serious bart. ;) As for Justice - I believe a whole crew of Representatives in the House have tried to go to "Justice" and Glenn Fine has told them that, even though OIG is supposed to be "independent" and equally beholden to Congress as to the Prez and AG, that's not *really* how it works, and since the AG and PRes are his and Justice's bosses - no one there is authorized to investigate them. Anyone who is an American knows that ALL the Republican committees and IN PARTICULAR Intel with Roberts are rubber stamp lap dogs. Roberts even threatened a former CIA agent that he was violating national security if he talked about the deleterious general effects on recruiting and morale of having CIA agents outed for spite. Yeah - you accomplish a lot going to them. I guess DeepThroat should have gone to his boss instead of WaPo too, eh? That would have gotten the job done.
The man is the subject of a criminal investigation.
So why can't we get those criminal investigations for all the other criminals while we're at it? *g*
The only folks that ever seem to get prosecuted or receive punitive actions are the WHISTLEBLOWERS. The real criminals and the criminally inept get free rides and promotions.
It's not just wrong - it's poor and inefficient government.
Anonymous, to TOWSNBN:
"WHy deliberately comingle and obfuscate?"
By definition, that's what trolls do.
That such trolls are ubiquitous, having plagued online discussions since before the Internet, is a sad commentary on human nature.
Unfortunately, the "blogosphere" has taken away one of our anti-troll tools: the kill file.
anonymous:
However, the "Rove" talking point was that is should be equally ok to wiretap American citizens on American soil - without a warrant - if they have "al-Qaeda on the line."
No, it's not. That would be too honest. The line is "they don't want us to listen to al Qaeda". They don't want to add in the specifics, because then people start to give pause. Unfortunately for them, the specific case of al Qaeda conversations with "U.S. persons" is still not within the ambit of FISA if the "target" (that is, the phone being tapped -- or the party which they want to listen to specifically) is the foreign al Qaeda agent. Just as they don't need a warrant to listen to you, as long as the tap is on the Mafia don's phone (along with warrant) and you happened to call the don. In actual fact, because they seem to acknowledge that FISA applies and is an impediment, they're either tapping domestically [50 U.S.C. 1801(f)(2)], or they're "targeting" "U.S. persons" [50 U.S.C. 1801(f)(1)] and recording all their calls, not just to al Qaeda, but to their mother, their dry-cleaners, and such....
Well and fine, if you can show the "U.S. person" is al Qaeda or otherwise a proper subject, but that you need to show, and get a warrant to demonstrate that an independent magistrate agrees with you.
Rove and company don't want to discuss the specific situation at issue, apparently (at least in part) because then they'd have to explain why they want to "target" all calls of people in the U.S., and to do so without enough evidence to satisfy a judge. That's the situation, and that's a harder sell with the American public.
HWSNBN's position seems to be that al Qaeda possession of a number is sufficient reason to tap, in his book. In his eyes, just the number is enough to make a person a "suspected terrorist". But then, by the same token and on the same quality of evidence, that would mean in turn that all other contacts of this "suspect" would be "suspects" in themselves. HWSNBN's "reasoning" would mean a NYC telephone directory in an al Qaeda safehouse overseas is sufficient to tap all of Manhattan, and that the LAX cab driver whose business card is in Moussaoui's wallet is enough to tap him ... and then, because he called his mother, her, and because she had a tea circle and called to invite them, all her old lady friends.... This is why we ask for "probable cause". There has to be more than just the number there, or pretty soon, the whole world's fair game for tapping....
Cheers,
the cynic librarian said...
"gris lobo: I agree with you and Roberts. I do, though, think that a strategy to undermine the illusion about the "war" is not as simple as you suggest. The misundertsanding has ingrained itself into the public through repetitive use in MSM, Dem and Rep rhetoric, and everyday usage. I do not think that the American public is in any condition to be educated about the semantic difference between use of force and war."
I know it's not simple, but IMO it should still be done. John Conyers a year ago brought a motion to investigate Bush for articles of impeachment. He knew it wouldn't go anywhere and when asked why he did it anyway he replied: Because in the future when it comes up I don't want anyone in Congress to be able use the excuse that they didn't know.
Besides I'm still looking for evil windmills, I'm pretty sure I haven't even made a dent in all of the whirling devils that are out there. :)
the cynic librarian said...
gris lobo: See edits to the "ad" below:
Text under graphic: On February 6, 2006, the top prosecutor of the United States, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, told Senators: "There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq." [Transcipt of testimony before the US Senate Judiciary Committee, in Washington Post, February 6]
[space]
Then why do President Bush and the Republican Congress want to take away your rights, listen to your phone calls, open your mail, and search your home without a warrant?
Worried? You should be. Call (608) 831-1308 [Feingold's office; he needs to get a national 1-800 or 1-888 phone number]
I like it.
Bart said:
The traitor Tice is full of crap.
1) He offers no evidence, merely his opinion.
So how is it that he could offer evidence since Bush has everyone gagged with a national security blanket.
And, how is it that he is a traitor when as you said, he offered no evidence?
So how is it that he could offer evidence since Bush has everyone gagged with a national security blanket.
Unfortunately, you seem to have escaped Bush's net.
So, "everyone" is a bit of an exaggeration, wouldn't you say?
Anonymous said...
So how is it that he could offer evidence since Bush has everyone gagged with a national security blanket.
Unfortunately, you seem to have escaped Bush's net.
So, "everyone" is a bit of an exaggeration, wouldn't you say?
Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your point if view. The truth is though that I haven't escaped any net since I'm not privy to any inside information that is not available to the general public.
Outstanding discussion... One particular aspect of this entire issue I have not seen is how much of a chance is the administration taking on having any potential convitions overturned? If evidence is brought forth on what is determined to be an illegal program, how is that making us more secure? Just wondering.
Dave P said...
"Outstanding discussion... One particular aspect of this entire issue I have not seen is how much of a chance is the administration taking on having any potential convitions overturned? If evidence is brought forth on what is determined to be an illegal program, how is that making us more secure? Just wondering."
They already lost one from what I've read. Apparently a lawyer asked the FBI what evidence they had against his client. The FBI handed him a paper, the lawyer looked at it and said: This is a transcript of my phone conversation. OOPS!!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home