Bush’s Unlikely Co-conspirators — It’s a shame that the weak-willed Democrats were stooges for Bush in the domestic spying scandal. This is a scandal that is going to go nowhere because nobody cares if Bush (or anyone else) spies on the public for whatever reason. The real reason is to identify political opponents and stay in office. That’s always been the reason to spy on the public. Meanwhile, numerous important Democrats knew about this before the elections and said nothing. Apparently there are rules, but upholding the tenets of the Constitution is not one of them.
Pelosi, Daschle and Rockefeller each privately expressed dismay over the spying program — in secret. They didn’t go public with their concerns because they were bound by rules governing classified briefings of congressional members. These classified briefings were launched more than 20 years ago as a reform in the oversight of the nation’s spy apparatus. But like many other reforms, classified briefings have become perverted and, in the hands of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, have become gags that prevent Congress members from doing their job.
I know I’m going to get a ton of shit on this, but I see no problem with what Bush did. He wasn’t spying on normal, law abiding people, he was monitoring calls that were either placed to or from known AlQuida phone numbers. I don’t know about you, but I haven’t felt the need to make such calls and call me crazy, but those that do are up to no good. Maybe the reason we haven’t had any acts of terroism since 9-11 is because of this monitoring. Whats worse is that a majority of the lefties on this board who will most surely bash me for this post would be the first ones bashing the President for not doing enough to protect them against terorrists if an attack took place. So flame on lefties, I wearing my absestos!
gquaglia, I won’t give you shit. I promise. But I will say this. The basis for your opinion rests on the idea that the government has your best interest in mind. That it IS looking out FOR you.
The reason why our nation is based on checks and balances is because the government does NOT always have our best interest in mind. Sometime their interests are completely contrary to ours.
If the world was perfect, we wouldn’t need courts, search warrants, laws, and the police. But since it isn’t, we need to keep our leaders following the same laws we do.
Because if Bush gets away with it, even though his purpose was noble. Some other president who had an entirely sinister purpose, WILL get away with it too. And I think we both agree that’d be a bad thing indeed.
“He wasn’t spying on normal, law abiding people, he was monitoring calls that were either placed to or from known AlQuida phone numbers.”
The “known” part is what is key to me. The Bush administration has clearly shown that it doesn’t *know* anything. The last time I checked, people in the USA are considered innocent until proven guilty. The conclusion I draw from that is that Bush is/was monitoring the calls of innocent, law abiding persons.
gc — keep your paranoid definitions and rationales in your own sandbox. Your strawman isn’t worth setting fire.
As for John’s premise about buttkissing Democrats, I think he’s right on. I haven’t felt it a large enough moment in the War on Terror charade; but, the tale playing out in the UK about Bush’s wish to bomb Aljazeera continues with an indictment or two on one hand — and members of Parliament who had a copy of the plan challenging their own Prime Minister to have them arrested and charged, on the other hand.
The candyass Democrats come into the picture — because the MP’s shipped a copy of the Bush plan over to them to use in the 2004 campaign — and they were afraid to use it for fear it would get Bush even more votes. Now, maybe that’s true. Our voters don’t exactly lead the world in foresight. But, it’s one more example of cowardly numnums who are too gutless to stand up for principle.
“The candyass Democrats come into the picture ”
Who will you vote for then in the next election, such a dilema, even your own people have abandoned you, poor, poor, lefties.
Not anymore of a problem than members of my family who quit the Republican Party in the past year — after 50 years of loyalty. Their contempt for the Quislings who prate about faith-based patriotism became too much too much to stay on board.
In the absence of honesty and integrity — and a 3rd Party choice — we’ll do what most Americans will end up doing. Voting for the lesser of two corrupt bands of thieves.
I shan’t wax wroth, right now. Besides, we all know how much Roth hates to be waxed. [That joke is older than most here will ever get to be!]. But, I will insert a note of historic ideology.
Most Progressives have as much respect for traditional American Conservatives as we don’t have for Liberals. The operative word being principle. It’s why I’ve most always gotten along with John — over the distance we have between us. American Conservatism has a history of not supporting imperial war, greedy politicians, and is the foundation of conservation in this land.
There’s a mutual concern for individual rights and equal amounts of contempt for fools and thugs who hide behind patriotism and supermarket religion to substitute for reason and even-handed personal responsibility.
I’ll hold the rant there for the next disclosure of whichever part of the Constitution our government is prepared to abandon. That includes both of the Tweedledee and dumber parties.
keep your paranoid definitions and rationales
Eidard, are you saying that there is no terrorist threat inside the US?
That there are no Al Qaeda cells or operatives in this country?
Somewhere between paranoia and naivete lies the truth.
If someone’s phone number is in an Al Qaeda cellphone or laptop, I don’t see any problem with wiretapping it for a couple days or weeks to see if the person may be involved in something shady. The problem with the Bush Administration’s actions was that there is existing law to deal with the situation and they decided to ignore it.
The last time I checked, people in the USA are considered innocent until proven guilty. The conclusion I draw from that is that Bush is/was monitoring the calls of innocent, law abiding persons.
This is the pre-9/11 law-enforcement mentality of dealing with terrorism. It isn’t enough anymore. We have to be proactive, following leads, and connecting the dots before an attack occurs, not after.
But it should be done according to law, with appropriate checks and balances.
Informing the leadership of Congress does not qualify as “oversight” or a sufficient check on the power of the executive. It has been considered a courtesy to inform the Article 1 branch of government. I do not blame the leadership of either party for not speaking up, since then they would be breaking the law as well. Sacrificing your career, especially such high profile leadership, by breaking the law would be foolish and backfire. Becoming a whistleblower when it requires breaking the law should be considered above and beyond the call of duty, not an expectation of “sticking by your principles.” Thank god for the person who leaked the existence of the CIA black sites overseas, but I wouldn’t call them a coward if they hadn’t.
Congress provided oversight for domestic spying by requiring the government to inform the special classified FISA court. If that wasn’t good enough, the Bush admin should have sought to change the law. And/or cleaned up the bureaucratic proceedures in the FBI/NSA for using FISA, which was another retarded excuse put up the flagpole.
“Quislings who prate about faith-based patriotism”
Don’t group me in with the religious wackos such as Robertson. Supporting the president has nothing to do with “faith based” anything.
TC — leave the straw man for GC. I didn’t say what you wish I had said. That’s juvenile style, dude.
I know enough about groups that are and aren’t terrorist to keep me under scrutiny from chickenshit feds for another 40 years — if I should live so long. I knew enough in 1986 to agree with folks in anti-colonial movements in North Africa who decided to stay leagues away from a religious nutcase named Osama. Unfortunately, George 1 and Rummy didn’t.
None of that has anything to do with the cruds who wish to dumb down our Constitution to being a document that rubber-stamps executive privilege above all else.
—-
Oh, and GC, you”re always good for a Tee-Hee. So, I should withdraw the religious nutter part and leave in Quisling?
I had to go back and see what I said earlier. QC — methinks you protesteth too much. Did I personalize my remarks about Republikans by including you in? Honestly, I did not have you in mind. Folks more like Rove and Wolfowitz ad nauseum.
Sorry, I thought you were generalizing, my apology
gquaglia >>I know I’m going to get a ton of shit on this, but I see no problem with what Bush did. He wasn’t spying on normal, law abiding people, he was monitoring calls that were either placed to or from known AlQuida phone numbers.
MAYBE. This is what Bush CLAIMS. I doubt everything Bush says now.
For starters, if these were legitimate targets, why didn’t Bush get the warrants? He would have been granted them, for sure. The legal process of geting warrants is SUPER EASY… so why would he by pass it?
I won’t be surprised — at all — if Bush, like Nixon, was spying on his political opposition, too, but doing it under the guise of security.
The founding fathers WISELY put checks-and-balances in our government and I really miss the days when we had them.
How lazy do you have to be to not even make the effort to go to a SECRET court to get a secret warrant?
gquaglia,
If you call “us” lefties, which connotes communist to me and is basically insulting – can I then call you a fascist? I mean you seem to like this “above the law” wire tap stuff.
Republicans use to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal (which is what I consider myself) until the party sold its soul to the religious fanatics.
BTW – I forgot.
I consider the term “Democratic Stooge” too kind.
I like “political cowards”, for that’s what the Dems are really showing.
Eideard, I honesty haven’t discerned your position or what you believe. I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth.
If you don’t give the authorities some leeway in wiretapping and investigating suspected terrorists, then the alternative is to wait around until they blow something up. Meanwhile, oversight from another branch of government deters abuse of that power, and holds the investigators accountable. Standard law enforcement and deterence techniques, pre-9/11 and Patriot Act, are not enough.
There should also be provisions for emergencies, and for simplified procedures related to suspected terrorists. For example, if you find 200 phone numbers in a terrorist’s phone, require 1 wiretapping warrant or case for all the numbers, instead of 200 warrants. It’s also not clear that getting these warrants is SUPER EASY. Most of them are approved (many recently with modifications by the court), but the bureaucracy and paperwork creates massive overhead that can kill initiative. Any FBI lawyers in the house?) See for FISA court numbers:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007280.php
I understand why someone who is critical of the Bush administration, and has personally experienced goverment abuse of power, would be extremely suspicious of these wiretaps. But with the right training and oversight, can they not be done professionally? Note that there has been no accusations of actual abuse of power in this program. (i.e. targetting rabble rousers in New Mexico.) Just that it’s illegal and unconstitutional and a threat to the fabric of our society.
Oh wait, it’s constitutional, but illegal. Hmm. Somebody skipped a step.
Do you people realize that Bush was well within his legal right to authorize domestic surveillance without a warrant? Carter did it. Reagan did it. Bush I did it. Clinton did it. In fact, it was Jamie Gorelick, the famous Democrat author of the memo that prevented the FBI and CIA from sharing information, who *defended* Clinton in 1994 on this issue. Even with the creation of the FISA, the Executive branch is not *required* to get a warrant before *legally* conducting domestic surveillance. FISA is merely an avenue to *add* legitimacy to the surveillance. It’s basically a CYA for the President.
> How lazy do you have to be to not even make the effort to
> go to a SECRET court to get a secret warrant?
It has nothing to do with laziness. It has to do with timing, leaks, communication and whether or not additional legitimacy is required. If the President is going to go to bat for you on your surveillance, then going to FISA is really an unnecessary step.
I agree that having oversight such as FISA sounds great. But in the real world, these things need to be approved in anywhere from five minutes to thirty minutes from the time they decide they want to conduct surveillance. Many times, all they have is a hunch as to their reasoning for wanting the tap. It’s a catch-22. They want to tap to determine if their hunch is correct. If there is a way to provide oversight with that kind of speed based on that loose of information then I’m all for it but I don’t see that happening.
Thomas,
Not according to the law they weren’t. If Carter did it, Clinton did it, Bush 1 did it and Reagan did it just means that Carter was wrong, Clinton was wrong, Bush1 was wrong and Reagan was wrong.
Yes, according to the law the President *has* the authority. Under Article II of the Constitution, the Commander in Commander in Chief has the responsibility to protect the Nation. This authority extends to the “independent authority to repel aggressive acts… without specific congressional authorization” and without court review of the “level of force selected.” Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000). In addition, there is the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed after 9/11 where the President is authorized to “use all necessary… force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the [9/11] terrorist attacks” and surveillence is considered part of that necessary force.
Once we declared war, the President was given authorization to protect the nation and that includes domestic surveillence on those suspected of ties to terrorist cells without Congressional authority or warrants.
Whether the law should be changed is a separate discussion.
I’m impressed. I bow to your facts sir.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/10/AR2006011001536.html
The president made his intentions clear in signing the defense bill containing the McCain amendment last month. Mr. Bush issued a presidential signing statement saying his administration would interpret the new law “in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power.” The language refers to the assertion by the president’s lawyers that his powers allow him, in wartime, to ignore statutes passed by Congress. The White House has intimated that it has similar authority in justifying Mr. Bush’s authorization of surveillance of Americans without court approval, in violation of another law.
Isn’t this incredibly dangerous to our democracy, when the President just ignores the intent of another branch of government? Republicans control Congress, but he can’t convince them to support his position, so he does what he wants anyway. This goes beyond constitutionality to basic civility and mutual understanding.
I want to trust the executive when we give him powers to protect us, but how does this underhanded, disingenuous behavior engender trust?
It’s so much easier when the President behaves like a gentleman.
I don’t know about what’s legal or not, but it seems the activity should largely be illegal. The President should feel free to break the law in wartime on this, and face up to impeachment charges. This is essentially what Sen. McCain and others are saying about the new torture law(feel free to break it when needed.)
Sorry, but this interpretation that we are at “war” simply because there is a threat of an angry group of people doesn’t pass muster with me in regards to giving any single branch of government the final right to institute it’s own level of justice. The ambiguity of this word could/does allow any President to wrongly supercede his given authority and significantly reduce the civil liberties and protections of individuals. Technically, the President could use any military involvement at any time and any place to satisfy the definition of war thus there has to be at least a second point of view involved in these kinds of decisions to prevent dictatorial abuse. This is what makes our government better/safer than the others and is why checks & balances were instituted from the start. We all know the Benjamin Franklin saying and IMO it applies here without a doubt. Involving another branch of the government like the Judicial branch for wiretapping is not too much to ask to preserve the integrity of our system. I bet the “Founders” are rolling over in their graves. 🙁
First, only Congress may declare war. They have not declared war. They authorized the President to use all necessary force to defeat the Taliban and alQuaeda. But they did not declare that we are in a state of war. The President decided that he gets to declare war. WRONG.
Clinton and Carter at no time signed any document allowing wiretaps of Americans without a warrant. That is just bull crap started by the Drudge Report and picked up by other neo-con blogs. Regan and Bush I, I don’t know about. They might have, but I give them more credit then that.
Thinking that 9/11 means we live in a whole new world says a lot. It says that the terrorists won. They won because we are all now hiding in our closets and duct taping the openings around the doors. They won because we have lost that right most widely coveted, our freedom.
Bush has the right to defend this nation against armed aggression. He does not have the right to abridge or ignore the Constitution to do so. The fourth Amendment prohibits warrentless searches. The law gives the government three days to apply for a warrant AFTER the start of tapping. Where is the delaying tactic? If they need a warrant they don’t need to worry about 5 minutes, or a half hour. They can wait three days !!!
***
The Democrats need a good platform. Something like a national health plan. Something everyone can see and say “hey, I’m effected by that”. “My deductibles are climbing, my premiums are climbing, so how is the private sector doing it better?”
Actually, yes we are formally at war. That happened when Congress passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force. There have been several cases that have concluded that this authorization equates to a formal declaration of war (see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld v. Padilla).
> Technically, the President could use any military
> involvement at any time and any place to satisfy the
> definition of war thus there has to be at least a second
> point of view involved in these kinds of decisions to
> prevent dictatorial abuse.
There is key difference between the President sending troops or conducting military operations and a formal declaration of war: Congressional approval. The courts have agreed that the AUMF *is* a formal declaration of war. Argue all you want about whether we *should* be in a state of war with your elected representatives that voted for the AUMF (which included a substantial number of Democrats if I remember correctly)
>Clinton and Carter at no time signed any
>document allowing wiretaps of Americans without a warrant.
You may want to go back and read your history. In 2002, the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review issued an opinion after examining every appellate decisions relating to this type of authority. They noted that the all the Federal court of appeals having looked at the issue had concluded that there was such a constitutional power. Secondly, under the Clinton administration the concept of warrant-less physical searches was extended to include surveillance. Lastly, because we are in a state of war, the President, in the course of conducting the war, is granted the authority to conduct surveillance without Congressional or a Court approval.
> The law gives the government three days to apply for a
> warrant AFTER the start of tapping. Where is the delaying
> tactic? If they need a warrant they don’t need to worry
> about 5 minutes, or a half hour. They can wait three days
> !!!
At issue is whether it is *required* to receive such approval in the first place and the courts have said it is not. The President certainly *can* go to FISA but he is not *required* to do so.
> At issue is whether it is *required* to receive such approval in the first place and the courts have said it is not. The President certainly *can* go to FISA but he is not *required* to do so.
Isn’t the issue whether the President *should* seek approval?
I believe Democratic senators who said that they did not imagine authorizing domestic wiretaps when they voted for the AUMF.
If that is a natural consequence of “sort of declaring war”… well, now they know and will draw up better legislation.
Even that might not be good enough, though, with SCOTUS saying Congress can’t micromanage the executive in “the equivalent of” wartime.
But it is and should be possible to have a debate in public about how far we want the President to go. It is possible to have “top secret” codiciles to laws, that members of Congress can vote on, without revealing “sources and methods.”
The President and his ilk are so sure of their virtue and good intentions, that they don’t seem to think about the long term consequences and unintended side effects of expanding Presidential powers.
What about when a Democrat becomes President, and she declares all anti-abortion activists to be terrorists, and since we are in a war on terror, she can wiretap them, too?
I realize everyone thinks this to be a slippery slope, but let’s have a little perspective. The President has always had the authority to conduct domestic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes on US soil without Congressional or a Court’s approval. I could lay a *long* history of the Executive branch spying on foreigners on US soil without any sort of approval and no one at the time nor afterward batted an eyelash. In addition, it does not sound like anyone here is sounding alarms about that situation. The difference is that we now have US citizens working with terrorist groups in an effort to get around the President’s surveillance restrictions.
FISA is not really a good solution. It has serious issues specifically with its tendency to apply standard judicial warrant guidelines to simple surveillance and thus be far too restrictive. There are numerous FBI reports about FISA causing problems with investigations like they did during the FBI investigation of Zaracarias Moussaoui. FISA was the one that denied the FBI a warrant to watch Wen Ho Len, the Los Alamos scientist who downloaded a bunch of material about making nuclear bombs onto a hard drive and left for China. Ironically, it is the Democrats that have traditionally argued *against* the need for FISA because they believe it to be rubber stamp for Executive surveillance. I think it would be far better to do away with FISA altogether and rely on inspector generals and general Congressional oversight.
Either way, Bush was well within his Constitutional authority to authorize surveillance without Congressional or court approval.
Republicans that defend this President like to use the fact that some Democrats also approved of some of these new laws like it validates the issue without question. I, quite frankly, don’t feel well represented by either of these two parties and don’t even like the fact that only two parties are ever in consideration in this country. Therefore, this “crossover” argument is about the lamest attempt I’ve seen to justify an issue.
With that said, I don’t even see how you can declare “war” on an enemy that isn’t organized enough to even sign a valid peace treaty. This means this “war” on terror is endless and thus any special powers given to any branch of government under this mantra are permanent. This is what makes this so damaging to the Constitution. IMO, this “war” needs to be relabeled by Congress as an ongoing “conflict” to prevent this President from going (any further) beyond the boundaries of what is an appropriate balance between freedom and safety. I mean, it took no more than 20-25 people to do all these terrorist attacks so does that now mean that a radical “moose lodge” can send this country into a declared war?