The Dellinger Myth
The Dellinger Myth
The right is desperate to defend Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program with the argument “Clinton did it too.” They’ve tried to make this case before and have failed repeatedly.
The National Review’s Andy McCarthy is giving it another go. (Michelle Malkin calls it a “must-read“) Here’s the essence of his latest effort:
As the Assistant Attorney General in the Clinton Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, [Walter] Dellinger explained in a written opinion to the White House, that: “The President has enhanced responsibility to resist unconstitutional provisions that encroach upon the constitutional powers of the Presidency.â€
McCarthy argues that Dellinger’s statement “illustrates that separation-of-powers principles obligate the President to decline to enforce (i.e., to ignore) congressional statutes that encroach on or purport to limit the executive’s constitutional powers – just as [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] does.”
The reason why Dellinger said the President should refuse to enforce unconstitutional statutes is because it’s true. But that principle doesn’t help the Bush administration at all in the current debate. Here’s why:
1. The Bush administration has never argued that FISA is unconstitutional. That argument wasn’t advanced in the Justice Department’s 42-page defense of the program, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ press conference or President Bush’s radio address. So the idea that the President has the right to ignore an unconstitutional statute is irrelevant.
2. The Bush administration has never argued that FISA is unconstitutional because it’s a really bad argument. As a group of constitutional scholars explain in the New York Review of Books: “the President can act in contravention of statute only if his authority is exclusive, that is, not subject to the check of statutory regulation…Congress plainly has authority to regulate domestic wiretapping by federal agencies under its Article I powers, and the DOJ does not suggest otherwise.”
So, it’s another bogus argument. But the right will keep repeating it until it loses all credibility. Then, they’ll drop it and make up another one. Rinse and repeat.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
It still always goes back to:
-> They knew the law
-> They could have tried to change it (likely
could have, i.e., DeWine)
-> They decided to break the law on the sly
-> They got caught (or leaked by a patriot)
-> They tried to silence the media
-> They are saying anything for cover
The United States runs by the rule of law.
February 4th, 2006 at 6:56 pmFollow it or face the consequences.
This goes for everyone.
clinton did it clinton did it clinton did it clinton did it clinton did it clinton did it clinton did it clinton did it
February 4th, 2006 at 7:06 pmMark Levin is a genius! And quite handsome, if I do say so myself.
[Ed note: This post orignally listed the NRO writer as Mark Levin. It's actually Andy McCarthy.]
February 4th, 2006 at 7:11 pmTheir arguments have been contradictory. Yes, we have the inherent power. We didn’t think Congress would grant power.
February 4th, 2006 at 7:18 pmWe did it anyway, because Clinton did it.
Will they ever tire of using that argument for everything from asserting that keyboards were glued (false, later admitted it was a “joke) to violating the Constitution (which Clinton did not do).
Gonzales is the company weasel who will go before Congress and double talk them as he did at the confirmation hearings last year.
He will compare the program to telegraph wiretapping during the Civil War.
that quote’s from kos
slavery was allowed back then also
this is really disgusting, and the medai will let him get away with it too…he will attack, the right wing nuts will bandy about and say “see, the president did nothing wrong”…even though they make themselves obsolete
it’s going to take republicans to recognize what’s happening to this country becuase of this administration and to do something to stop it
February 4th, 2006 at 7:32 pm“He will compare the program to telegraph wiretapping during the Civil War.”
I’m guessing they’ll compare it to two tin cans and a string between Grog and Yor wiretapping.
February 4th, 2006 at 7:45 pm“But the right will keep repeating it until it loses all credibility.”
what, the right has credibility???? When did that happen…I musta bin sleepin.
What you meant to say is: “But the right will keep repeating it in their usual false, lying, deceptive, and incredible way just as they always do; and the corporate media will run with it just like its truth”….why its downright truthiness.
February 4th, 2006 at 7:48 pmoh.my.gosh.
Bush is a criminal. Nothing Michelle “I hate myself with a passion” Malkin will change that. Must read indeed.
February 4th, 2006 at 7:49 pmhttp://www.auvsi.org/news/
There will be warrantless spying at tomorrow’s Super Bowl.
There will be plenty of propaganda on display during the game tomorrow.
Are you ready for some football?
February 4th, 2006 at 8:07 pmWashington Post
February 4, 2006
U.S. Decries Embassy Torchings in Syria
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/04/AR2006020401110.html
Looks like old Bushy found himself a reason to attack Syria.
February 4th, 2006 at 8:20 pmFunny how they scream CLINTON for everything. Two points: 1. So, what if he did. Two wrongs don’t make a right. 2. Being correct on this issue will be meaningless unless a Democrat knocks down the argument everytime it is adanced in the media. Before long the “Clinton did it too” meme will be standard traditional media “balance”.
http://www.ornerydem.blogspot.com
February 4th, 2006 at 8:22 pmi can’t even admire them for trying this. we are right back with the same retrospective justifications as have been built up around why military action in Iraq was launched.
my own feeling is that the spin will become connected to a statement such as “everyone was listened to”. in effect, this argument will contain a grain of fairness (when presented by the media), in that everyone’s rights were violated equally in the pursuit of elusive “national security” goals.
don’t know if it’s been circulated much on here, but the EFF are suing AT&T for its part in sharing data with intelligence agency.
“National Security is the alibi of those who want to destroy the Constitution.” – Robert Anton Wilson, circa 1990
February 4th, 2006 at 8:24 pmhey judd – you need to correct the levin/mcarthy thing on the “cover page” of this thread – as in #3 [Ed note: This post orignally listed the NRO writer as Mark Levin. It’s actually Andy McCarthy.]
February 4th, 2006 at 8:28 pmoops…think rosanne rosannadanna: “never mind”…
February 4th, 2006 at 8:30 pmi was backing up to the old page…
The Fact they are Defending not one, but man crooks defending Crooks. The Media has been Colluding with the Corporate Duoply for 40 years.
The Democrats So closely Resemble the Republicans, the Neo-Cons, much as the Same in Article below, Will Say ANYTHING to any group to get a Vote. Is it Possble that Society has become so Moderate that Politicos have gone past smear campaigns, to Outright Lying?
It would Appear SO. And for the Canadian Posters here. Look at America, the Wars, the Corruption in Government, This is Whats coming your Way.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=RYA20060204&articleId=1887
he 2006 federal election has set the stage for a possible dismantling of Canada’s distinctive social and economic fabric. The newly evolved Conservative Party, in many respects a chilling echo of the USA’s Republican Party, is poised for a two-stage attack to reshape Canada in line with its Canadian version of America’s neoconservative ideology.
With slightly more than a third of the popular vote and only 40 percent of the seats in Parliament, the Conservatives will form a precarious minority government. From this it’s obvious that the majority of Canadians opposed the Conservative platform and their philosophy, but the opposition was split amongst three parties, leaving the Conservatives with the largest number of seats. From this perspective, the Conservatives are in no position to claim that they have a “mandate” to try to enact any of their reactionary policies. And nor would they have a chance, given that all three opposition parties oppose the Conservative platform and objectives. But herein lies the danger.
Having learned through previous election defeats that the bulk of Canada’s people are philosophically opposed to the radical right-wing objectives of the “new” Conservatives, Stephen Harper cleverly and successfully concealed the party’s true agenda throughout the election campaign. And now in his shaky minority position, Harper will continue with his innocent-looking choir-boy persona, together with his awkward, artificial restraint of language. During this time, none of his hard-core objectives will be presented. Instead, he’ll introduce some basically non-controversial matters, such as accountability legislation, the strengthening of powers for the Auditor General and the Ethics Commissioner, some amendments to the justice system to deal with violent crime, and other such measures. Unfortunately, he’ll be able to put through some of his reactionary tax proposals, because a defeat on budget matters would immediately bring down his government. Basically, the Conservative Party’s prime objective will be to survive a few months in a non-controversial manner so as to gain the respect and confidence of the public to give them a mandate for a majority in the next election. That will be Harper’s fundamental agenda.
~Full Article At Link Above~
February 4th, 2006 at 8:32 pmAMERICA WAKE UP
The innocent never wage a campaign of innocence.
For they have nothing to hide.
The innocent remain innocent
Down deep to their core inside.
AMERICA WAKE UP
The guilty child,
With crumbs on their face,
Will protest and point
Diverting from it’s disgrace.
AMERICA WAKE UP
The child protests and seeks comfort
In the arms of it’s motherland.
But a good motherland knows
The essentials of the reprimand.
AMERICA WAKE UP
February 4th, 2006 at 8:36 pmBush is trying to foist any excuse he can to justify his illegal wiretapping program! He willfully violated the FISA Laws, but he refuses to stop doing so, which means the Congress must impeach him!
February 4th, 2006 at 8:37 pmAndrew McCarthy is pretty knowledgable about these sorts of things, he also exposed the media lie about Valerie Plame being covert.
As for the terrorist attacks against the embassies in Syria, if Denmark or Norway wishes to retaliate against the Syrian government-endorsed attack on their embassies, then we should help them out.
February 4th, 2006 at 8:50 pmThe “Clinton did it, too” defense shows us that the right’s “rule of law” concerns during the Clinton administration were bogus. Not that we didn’t already know that, but what we’re hearing with this defense is the kind of parenting these people had, where “All the kids are doing it” pleas were obviously successful.
I’m old enough to remember when conservatives at least had some intellectual heft to their extreme policy ideas. I may not have liked or agreed with Bill Buckley or Nixon or Kissinger, but I appreciated the fact that they did their homework in crafting arguments to try to convince others to sign on to them.
Not so for this crop of conservatives.
February 4th, 2006 at 8:52 pmSo, it’s another bogus argument from Think Progress. But the left will keep repeating it because it has lost all credibility.
The Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee has laid out the extensive precedent for the president’s terrorist surveillance program here.
February 4th, 2006 at 9:11 pm#20 it’s warrantless wiretapping of american citizens, not terrorist surveillance program. it’s difficult to talk about an apple when you keep insisting it’s an orange.
February 4th, 2006 at 9:19 pmAmerican.
Whoop deee doooo,
So, crazy Pat Roberts thinks that the president should have the power of a king. Too F’ing bad for him and you.
February 4th, 2006 at 9:21 pmWhat continues to puzzle me is, based on their unparalleled arrogance, and the mistaken belief, but no less powerful, for all that it IS a mistaken one, that they can do no wrong. If they really felt that way, why are they trying so hard to justify their actions? If they “know” they are right, it should not matter what anyone else says about it. They are trying WAAAAY to hard here. Why is that?
February 4th, 2006 at 9:28 pmPost 18 Gary Ruppert > so now we are supposed to attack Syria for burning down the Danish embassy? Which occured because Denmark insulted Muslims > let the Danes attack Syria with their puny military > lol.
February 4th, 2006 at 9:30 pm#23 i don’t know if i go along with that. i would say that they are having to try very hard to come up with a justification because finally, they don’t have a defense. so far they’ve not made it beyond “the dog ate my homework”, or even better, “bill clinton ate my homework”
February 4th, 2006 at 9:30 pmIt’s warrantless wiretapping of al Qaeda and their collaborators.
Spudgeboy, it’s interesting that you on the left would rather demonize a US Senator than try to catch terrorists.
Some would say that isn’t very patriotic.
February 4th, 2006 at 9:32 pmAmerican
Catching terrorists is what we should be doing, dumbass. Instead, we are wasting billions of dollars and thousands of lives in Iraq for nothing. We are fighting insurgents in Iraq while the terrorists are plotting another fvcking 9/11.
Served yet? Go put a bumper sticker on your car. Loser.
February 4th, 2006 at 9:34 pmWe’re fighting terrorists in Iraq.
February 4th, 2006 at 9:35 pmOh yeah, it IS domestic spying and your chicken shit in chief is going down.
Keep praying, that will help.
February 4th, 2006 at 9:35 pmThere are about 750-1000 terrorists in Iraq, all others are insurgents. Doesn’t matter what you think, that is the truth.
February 4th, 2006 at 9:36 pm“Oh yeah, it IS domestic spying…”
Prove it.
February 4th, 2006 at 9:36 pm#26 if you want some lessons in reasoning and logic, feel free to ask. here you come up with a false conclusion, that someone who doesn’t buy a defense of the warrantless wiretapping of US citizens (and it is that, unless you are going to insist that all US citizens who make international calls are Al-Qaida operatives) is not doing enough to catch terrorists.
what possible evidence, outside of your own primitive fantasy life, is there for that conclusion?
you then advance the false conclusion another dream-like step and call into question spudgeboy’s patriotism. we cannot know the contents of spudgeboy’s heart and assess the patriotism that may dwell there, but we can observe your faulty logic.
you may want to tread carefully when referring to the ability to catch terrorists, as so far your Leader has failed miserably in every respect.
February 4th, 2006 at 9:37 pmWe are fighting terrorists in Iraq. Doesn’t matter what you think, that is the truth.
February 4th, 2006 at 9:37 pmSo far George W. Bush, America’s leader, has done very well against the terrorists.
February 4th, 2006 at 9:39 pm#25- That was the point that I was trying to make. They know that they are busted, and like usual, it’s lie, lie, lie, because that has worked for them in the past. Only, it’s not working this time. They will soon need to “get back into life, with Depends!”
February 4th, 2006 at 9:39 pmin·sur·gent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-sûrjnt)
adj.
1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.
We are fighting INSURGENTS.
February 4th, 2006 at 9:39 pm#33 The British called the IRA terrorists, the Americans dug deep and sent them guns and bombs in their fight for freedom. Every people has the right to resist an invasion of their land, I seem to remember Americans doing something very similar a few centuries ago. And, to return to one of your themes, patriotism, I would say that in dying to defend their land, the Iraqi fighters are exemplifying patriotism.
February 4th, 2006 at 9:41 pmThe terrorists in Iraq are fighting against the elected government of Iraq. The US military is assisting that elected government.
February 4th, 2006 at 9:44 pm#38 The Iraqis are attacking the Puppets and the Puppet Master. That is wholly consistent.
February 4th, 2006 at 9:45 pmBy the way, Spudgeboy, one can be both a terrorist and an insurgent at the same time. They are not exclusive concepts. You really seem to be not too bright.
February 4th, 2006 at 9:45 pmYou can’t just label every foreigner who doesn’t agree with you a terorist anymore than you can label any American that doesn’t agree with you unpatriotic.
pa·tri·ot ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ptr-t, -t)
n.
One who loves, supports, and defends one’s country.
I served in the military during Desert Storm. So, I fit into the definition of patriot. A$$hole.
February 4th, 2006 at 9:45 pmThe insurgents in Iraq are fighting against being occupied by Bush and Blair! There are a few outside terrorists who have come into Iraq, but before we invaded Saddam killed any who got into his country! As Spudge_Boy says the insurgents are Iraqis who want our troops to leave!
February 4th, 2006 at 9:47 pmWrong, the terrorists are fighting the US, the insurgents are fighting the other Iraqis.
According to your leaders, the terrorists are coming from over the border and are not Iraqi, so they cannot be insurgents.
You are the stupid one here.
February 4th, 2006 at 9:47 pmThe Iraqis are attacking the terrorists, with US military assistance. The people of Iraq held an election and voted for their government.
“I served in the military during Desert Storm. So, I fit into the definition of patriot”
Timothy McVeigh also served in Desert Storm. So he was a patriot according to you. I disagree.
February 4th, 2006 at 9:48 pm#41 “You can’t just label every foreigner who doesn’t agree with you a terorist”
it’s not just foreigners who disagree with people like American who are terrorists, it’s anyone who disagrees.
February 4th, 2006 at 9:48 pmTimothy McVeigh was crazy a$$wipe.
February 4th, 2006 at 9:50 pmSHOCK AND AWE. used by terrorists.
February 4th, 2006 at 9:53 pmMerican has that right wing brain wasting disease spread by conservative radio losers.
#44 Bin Ladens were investors in the Carlyle Group, along with George Herbert Walker Bush. if you can taint the thousands who served in desert storm because of McVeigh’s actions, then GWB and GB are, by your logic, terrorists.
February 4th, 2006 at 9:53 pmI wonder who Roberts had write the letter he signed. Is it Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ? Is he doing as good a job as he did in the Schiavo parent’s appeals to the Supreme Court.
Roberts letter outlines a reason to intercept foreign agents communications and nobody has a problem if the program is being used solely for that purpose.
Given the number of times the administration has marketed a position by leaving out substantive opposing views,I think the hearings are necessary and should be broadened beyond Gonzalez. If it were deemed necessary,the hearings could be and probably should be closed.
I think most people want some third party confirmation that the program really is confined to terrorist activity. I believe that if the program was truly useful,this is not a group to hide its success.As was done with PATRIOT arrest,the president was quite public about the 33 “terrorists” arrested;you know the guy who intended to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blow torch and the salmon fisherman who failed to renew a license.
It should not be a surprise that most people don’t trust these people.
February 4th, 2006 at 9:58 pmGonzales has hinted that he will argue that FISA is unconstitutional if the White House does not succeed in its present argument:
So the unconstitutional theory is on its way.
Patriot Daily
February 4th, 2006 at 9:58 pmGood ol’ Timmy McV. He must be one of those “Terrorist/Insurgent” Hybrids, huh? Vewy Scawy!!! If G.W. had been President at the time, Tim would still be a free man.
February 4th, 2006 at 10:00 pmAmerican? you are the kind of customer we love here . Why I’ve got a creampuff collectors 65′ Corvair right cheer and a great lookin’ 76′ Volkswagon Thing over there ,very versitile by the way, and how’s about some increadible 70’s American Motors products like a 73′ Gremlin,or a 75′ Pacer. You’ll clearly BUY anything, so how about makin’ a deal right now.
February 4th, 2006 at 10:00 pmSex.
Lies.
And Howard Dean.
Watch it now: Http://howarddean.cf.huffingtonpost.com
February 4th, 2006 at 10:02 pmOr spend the rest of your life regretting it.
#48: “if you can taint the thousands who served in desert storm because of McVeigh’s actions”
I didn’t say all those who served in Desert Storm are the same, Spudgeboy did. I disagreed with him. Learn to read.
February 4th, 2006 at 10:03 pmGonzales is not a very bright lawyer Patriot Daily, so he can try to say FISA is unconstitutional, but his proof will be flimsy and/or rediculous! The Congress has constitutional right to limit the power of the executive branch, if the presidency tries to become Above-The-Law as Bush is doing with his warrantless wiretaps and survaliance!
February 4th, 2006 at 10:06 pmJudd,
February 4th, 2006 at 10:06 pmThere are so many lunitics on this thread that you should shut it down. This American character left out a prefix (Anti).
#54 i can read, thank you. you implied that spudgeboy’s patriotism was in doubt, unless he concurred that mcveigh was a patriot, too. you chose someone who did something disgusting to corner spudge boy. however, american, if you understood the concept of extensionality as laid out in General Semantics, you may appreciate that McVeigh1, the soldier during Desert Storm, was a patriot, but McVeigh2, who perpetrated the Oklahoma bombing acted unpatriotically, by killing his fellow Americans.
if you need it simpler, think about the fact that these two statements do not contradict one another
1) when X was five years old, he was a child
February 4th, 2006 at 10:08 pm2) when X was twenty-five years old, he was not a child
hey, #54. mcveigh was a flip-flopper, now do you understand!
February 4th, 2006 at 10:11 pmThat is not what I said. You are trying to put words in my mouth. Here is what I said.
I said “I fit into the definition of patriot.” I didn’t say anything about anybody else in the universe. Don’t try and put words into other people’s mouths. It never works well.
February 4th, 2006 at 10:12 pmFascist State, are we becoming one? Read and compare:
February 4th, 2006 at 10:27 pmhttp://www.therandirhodesshow.com/live/node/2226
Hey American…. Lets see just how your president is supporting the troops and protecting us from terrorists.
1) He knew months before 9/11 that there were terrorists in the country planning an attack on America.
2) He ORDERED the FBI to stop investigating the Bin Laden family before 9/11.
3) He sat in his chair at a child reading after he was told that America was under attack and did NOTHING.
4) He falsified information, lied to congress, and the American people to get us into a war in Iraq.
5) He failed to provide the necessary troops, even though is Generals told him from the start that he would need at least 400,000 troops to perform that invasion.
6) He continually told the American people that if the Generals requested more troops that they would get them. Several generals did that, but Rumsfeld said no.
7) He made the wounded soldiers pay $8 a day for food while being treated in a military hospital.
8) He shipped the dead home as cargo, rather than in a military transport with the honor guard.
9) He forces the soldiers to find their own way home after exiting the military.
10) He is defaulting on a contract with the military personnel by creating a back door draft. He is forcing the personnel to remain in service despite that their contract is up.
Now how about the American people.
1) He did nothing for Katrina victoms. Before, during, and after the huricane.
2) He says that he is for higher education, but cuts education benefits.
3) He gives to the rich, while cutting very needed assistance for the less fortunate.
I could go on, but I think this should be enough to show how ignorant you are about the facts. This president has put this country in debt more than all of the previous presidents before in our 224 year history.
Your looser president is nothing but a reverse robbin hood, and he will be jailed eventually for his crimes against America and the world.
One last thing. Have you ever served your country? I would bet that the answer will be no. Most republicans are very good at armchair soldering and talking about patriotism, but the majority don’t have the balls to back up your talk.
February 4th, 2006 at 10:32 pm#61- Bravo!
February 4th, 2006 at 10:43 pmGuys and Dolls, the trolls have punched their time cards and left for the evening. New shift is catching up with the day’s damage. They’ll be back on line at about 2300 hours.
February 4th, 2006 at 10:51 pm#60 remove bush
February 4th, 2006 at 10:55 pmApplause, applause.
Oh, by the bye, the 2300 to 0700 shift has been off-sourced to India.
February 4th, 2006 at 10:57 pm“So far George W. Bush, America’s leader, has done very well against the terrorists.”
Comment by American — February 4, 2006 @ 9:39 pm
Joe Goebbels, take a well-deserved bow!
February 4th, 2006 at 10:59 pm#26 American, in response to your posts. Bush and the right would rather demonize true patriots and the left than go after his buddy BenLaden. All of us say he and you are unpatriotic. #33 Unless you have a mouse in your pocket, and are caring a gun in Iraq your ” We” is only fighting for Bush’s lies.
#46 Spudge-Boy, So is Bush and company……Blessings
February 4th, 2006 at 11:11 pmRE: 55
Jay, there is no doubt that Bush team will have a flimsy case that FISA is unconstitutional. But, the case for war was flimsy too, as is the case for much of what Bush team does, and continues to get away with….
My point was simply that Gonzales has indicated at least twice, at a speech at Georgetown and in the 42 page brief, what I perceived as a thinly veiled threat to Congress that if you continue to challenge Bush on his illegal surveillance of Americans, then we may face a constitutional crisis as the Bush team will argue that a president’s constitutional powers trump Congress a la FISA.
At Georgetown speech:
Dept. of Justice letter:
“Even if there were ambiguity about whether FISA, read together with the AUMF, permits the President to authorize the NSA activities, the canon of constitutional avoidance requires reading these statutes in harmony to overcome any restrictions in FISA and Title III, at least as they might otherwise apply to the congressionally authorized armed conflict with al Qaeda. Indeed, were FISA and Title III interpreted to impede the President’s ability to use the traditional tool of electronic surveillance to detect and prevent future attacks by a declared enemy that has already struck at the homeland and is engaged in ongoing operations against the United States, the constitutionality of FISA, as applied to that situation, would be called into very serious doubt. In fact, if this difficult constitutional question had to be addressed, FISA would be unconstitutional as applied to this narrow context. Importantly, the FISA Court of Review itself recognized just three years ago that the President retains constitutional authority to conduct foreign surveillance apart from the FISA framework, and the President is certainly entitled, at a minimum, to rely on that judicial interpretation of the Constitution and FISA.â€
So, I think we agree. It is just that when it comes to a disagreement between Bush and Congress, in the past Bush has generally won.
February 4th, 2006 at 11:13 pmPatriot Daily > you are correct unless the Congress stands up for itself! Since Alito got confimed to the Supreme Court, I suppose Gonzales can appeal it to them! It would be the end of our democracy, if Bush can declare that he alone determines a law’s validity!
February 4th, 2006 at 11:25 pmAnd, Patriot Daily, our nation has lost?
February 4th, 2006 at 11:28 pmMark Levin is a genius! And quite handsome, if I do say so myself.
[Ed note: This post orignally listed the NRO writer as Mark Levin. It’s actually Andy McCarthy.]
Comment by Mark Levin — February 4, 2006
It was actually authored by Charlie McCarthy, and I should know. I’m Edgar Bergen. And although Charlie is a wooden dummy, he is far more intelligent than that meat puppet, Mark Levin, and much better looking, too.
February 4th, 2006 at 11:29 pmAndrew McCarthy is pretty knowledgable about these sorts of things, he also exposed the media lie about Valerie Plame being covert.
Comment by Gary Ruppert
That’s a different Andrew McCarthy, Ruptured. We know that’s your favorite movie, though. Pretty in Pink!
February 4th, 2006 at 11:36 pmAndrew McCarthy is pretty knowledgable about these sorts of things, he also exposed the media lie about Valerie Plame being covert.
Comment by Gary Ruppert
Yes Gary the Media Lies.
February 4th, 2006 at 11:55 pmAnd Edgar flayed you to Boot.
Bergen and McCarthy are sometimes credited with “saving the world”
Thanks Mr Bergen. =)
February 4th, 2006 at 11:59 pm# 70
WaltTheMan: Yes, our nation will lose if Bush can trump Congress. What would be the point of Congress if Bush does not have to comply with laws enacted?
This theory is not limited to FISA. Bush team is also indicating that it does not need the Patriot Act extended in order for Bush to have those powers to fight terrorists:
And, government lawyers now argue in court that 9/11 created “special factors†– including “the need to detect and deter future terrorist attacks – that outweigh the plaintiffs’ right to sue for damages for any constitutional violations.”
The argument was made in a lawsuit filed by noncitizens who were arrested and held in a federal detention center in the weeks after 9/11 as “persons of interest†to terror investigations. However, essentially the government is arguing that it has immunity based on 9/11 and these special factors. So, if it prevails, there goes redress in the courts for constitutional violations. And, for quite some time given that these special factors will exist throughout “war on terror,†which is now named the “Long War,†as it will outlive us all.
So, yes, our nation would lose a lot.
February 5th, 2006 at 12:02 amGary never met his twin, Charlie McCarthy – they were separated at the saw mill and Gary was adopted by the Rupperts. Unfortunately, all of the nuts were in the Gary part and they gave the balls to Charlie. The heads looked the same, but Charlie’s was not hollow.
February 5th, 2006 at 12:11 amSo, Patriot Daily, you agree, we’ve been and are being screwed.
February 5th, 2006 at 12:26 amI have to go to bed, my honey is horny.
February 5th, 2006 at 12:30 amEver notice that certain handles describe the opposite of what they stand for? OK. Congress passes an “unconstitutional” law, supposedly. It has happened before (look at provisions of the “Patriot Act”). So does the administration declare FISA unconstitutional….no. Bush just writes his little exception notes to bills and does what he pleases as if there were no Constitution what-so-ever…and on the sly.
Truly un-American behavior. Imperial behavior; Dictatorial behavior.
February 5th, 2006 at 1:54 amI too am a
Patriotic Insurgent
Let my Govt. arrest me
for fighting for my rights.
AMERICA WAKE UP
February 5th, 2006 at 2:29 amthe republicans went after clinton and caught him in a lie about a … you know. IMO, it wasn’t a reason to impeach him over.
everything that GWB has been exposed for, the far right says “clinton did it!!”
if clinton really did ALL the things the Bush admin has been accused of, don’t you think it would have been brought out in the impeachment hearings? i would have been behind the impeachment of clinton 100% !!
instead, i said to myself — ” huh?? they want to impeach him over getting caught in a lie about a (you know)????”
February 5th, 2006 at 4:08 amJudd you freak, I thought you said you were going on a retreat? I have been reading an awesome book and I will reccomend it to everyone again. When you read it it you will say to your self I have not been losing it, these guys PNAC dudes have it all laid out. They were just lucky 911 became their catalyst. Enjoy. ” War for Muslim Minds” by Gilles Kepel.here is an exerpt(PDF) from harvard Press:http://www.hup.harvard.edu/pdf/KEPWAR.pdf
February 5th, 2006 at 6:21 amIf President Clinton jumped off a bridge, would you do it too? Apparently the answer from this administration is, yes.
President Clinton did not authorize warrentless wiretaps, but even if he did it doesn’t make it legal.
Furhter, the current administration believes the ends justify the means. This is a slippery slope and contrary to our system of government and laws. Nazis believed Hitler was pursuing worthy ends.
February 5th, 2006 at 6:24 amAs for the terrorist attacks against the embassies in Syria, if Denmark or Norway wishes to retaliate against the Syrian government-endorsed attack on their embassies, then we should help them out.
Comment by Gary Ruppert #18
Scary Pookbutt,
Until your enlistment papers are published on this site stop with this “we” sh*t!
You right wing chickkkenhawkkk traitors are always quick volunteer someone else’s blood and guts…
February 5th, 2006 at 12:23 pm#44 Bin Ladens were investors in the Carlyle Group, along with George Herbert Walker Bush. if you can taint the thousands who served in desert storm because of McVeigh’s actions, then GWB and GB are, by your logic, terrorists.
Comment by extreme unction #48
extreme,
They are…
February 5th, 2006 at 12:28 pmREAD THIS EVERYBODY WAR IS COMING SOON
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/02/battle_plans_fo_1.html#more
February 5th, 2006 at 4:04 pmJABBS has a similar post, regarding conservative radio host Mark Levin’s efforts Friday to suggest that if Bush broke the law, then Clinton (and Gore!!!) broke the law, too.
February 5th, 2006 at 10:39 pmHypothetical:
Define “terrorist” as: A person who desires to kill civilians to further a political aim.
Define “suspected terrorist” as: Someone the federal goverentment *believes* is desirous of killing civilians to further a political aim.
Now, let’s say the feds. had a list of suspected terrorists in foreign nations. Let’s say they could identify calls to/from those persons.
Now let’s suppose that calls between an American and a suspected terrorist would *always* be tapped, but calls that did not involve a suspected terrorist would *never* be tapped. How would you feel about that?
To me, that is the question here. I think you can fall into several camps:
1. It’s always ok, because it fights terrorism, and I trust the gov’t to make decisions about creating the list of suspected terrorists.
2. It would be ok if the list was correct, but I oppose the program because I don’t trust the gov’t to create the list in good faith and based upon good evidence.
3. It’s wrong even if the list is compiled correctly, and the program is carried out honestly.
I expect that most people are in camp 2 – i.e., such a program, if executed narrowly, is necessary in the cause of stopping civilian deaths. The thing is, people are assuming a priori (as far as I can tell) that BushCo. will label all sorts of people “terrorists” to get them on the watch list.
Is there evidence that this program is being used in calls where *neither* party is on the terrorist list? Is there evidence that that list is overly broad?
I hate Bush. Hatehatehate him. But I worry that, absent some evidence that either a) The list is clearly full of the wrong people or b) The program has grown to calls where no terrorist is involved, this can be dismissed as people who simply refuse to trust Bush on anything.
If there is evidence, I would love to see it, as it makes my stance on this one much easier to formulate.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:10 pmWhile not addressing the substantive issues underlying this thread, I find it interesting to observe the repeated resort to name-calling and other profanities directed by some against those with whom they disagree. IMHO such perjorations and ad hominem attacks do nothing to further the discourse and if anything, suggest a lack of substance in their position. Perhaps the authors concerned are in dire need of anger management skills or at the very least a refresher in civility. Cheers!!
February 6th, 2006 at 11:22 pm[...] I’d bet my last dollar that this shows up repeatedly on “conservative” blogs and Fox News. It is their standard, grade school defense against criticism of the Bush Administration. Right-wing defense of the Bush Administration’s illegal domestic wiretapping is that previous Presidents have acted similarly, which, of course, isn’t true. That’s just one of many examples. But it illustrates the juvenile way in which they defend the reprehensible behavior of their leaders. [...]
February 13th, 2006 at 1:57 amGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 9th, 2008 at 5:54 pm