The ‘Old Law’ Myth
President Bush has argued that he needed to ignore the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act because it was an old law. From his January 26 press conference:
[T]he FISA law was written in 1978. We’re having this discussion in 2006. It’s a different world. And FISA is still an important tool. It’s an important tool. And we still use that tool. But also — and we — look — I said, look, is it possible to conduct this program under the old law? And people said, it doesn’t work in order to be able to do the job we expect us to do.
Bush gives the impression that he’d very much like to have the program work within the confines of the law but it’s just too old to accommodate it. That isn’t true.
Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program began in October 2001. Amendments to the law were requested from Congress by the Bush administration, and enacted with Bush’s signature two months later.
The December 2001 amendments to FISA aimed to provide additional flexibility in emergency situations. For example, the FY 2002 Intelligence Authorization Act amended FISA to extend the amount of time that the government could conduct surveillance without securing a warrant from 24 to 72 hours:
The conferees agreed to a provision to extend the time for judicial ratification of an emergency FISA surveillance or search from 24 to 72 hours. That would give the Government adequate time to assemble an application without requiring extraordinary effort by officials responsible for the preparation of those applications.
When President Bush says that FISA is an “old law,” it’s not true. It’s a law that was recently amended at his request and by his signature. Bush’s decision to circumvent the law was not one of necessity – it was his choice.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
To paraphrase Pres Bush:
The Constitution was written in 1776. We’re having this discussion in 2006. It’s a different world. I said, look, is it possible to conduct this program under the old law?
February 7th, 2006 at 2:01 pmThat “old law” argument isn’t going to hold up any way. Why bother even talking about when it was amended? Every person with any sense would consider it asinine.
So in George’s world, we don’t have to obey any law passed before 1978? 1980? Let me know the cut-off so I can start murdering, raping, and pillaging the townships.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:05 pmGonzales also went out of his way yesterday to point out that the administration fully believes that FISA is just fine how it is; and that this surveillance program is within the parameters of FISA. so i’d like to know why Bush felt the need to say that FISA was out of date and then Gonzales said yesterday that it’s just fine.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:06 pmOK…..
I just read a comment that basically said.
Gonzo talked about FISA being just fine, but the administration did not feel that it was adaquate.
Now it’s gone, why?
February 7th, 2006 at 2:11 pmYeah, and the Magna Carta was written in 1215, and it put limits on the Executive authority, see? It was a different world then. I said, look here, see. Is it possible to conduct this program under the old law? And the answer was, “Nay, my Lord. It canneth not.” So I ignored it.
Why, oh, why can’t they just tell the truth? Why does the president have to lie all the time? And why doesn’t the MSM just forget manners and politeness and just call the president the liar that he is? It’s not like he respects real journalists (which is why he loves Fox News Channel), so why do they worry about pissing him off? What’s the end result of making him mad? He won’t talk to them any more? So what? You can’t believe a single thing the man says any way, so why would it be such a big deal to get the president for an interview? They would do a much better service to their viewers if they forgot about interviewing the president or anyone in his administration and concentrated on telling the American people about all of his lies (lie Eric Alterman and Mark Green tried to do in their book “The Book on Bush”.)
The fact of the matter is that American citizens have more to fear from their own president than they do from the terrorists.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:13 pmWhat GWB means is, “It’s like any old law we don’t want to obey!”
February 7th, 2006 at 2:13 pmNow it’s back…. WHOA!!!
February 7th, 2006 at 2:13 pmFor the sake of argument, let’s assume that Gonzo is not lying and that what the thugs are doing is consistent with FISA, authorized by the use of force (Congress) and the inherent powers of the prez (Constitution). Now, how would it be possible for all those to be true? Well, one way would be to have another country overseas capture the information and only deliver the results to the US. I’m thinking Israel could accomplish this based on their strategic location with listening posts in Iraq / Afghanistan / Pakistan. It’s a Black Operation utilizing microwave relay stations along with cell (GPS) information and land line info. Sound reasonable? That would also explain why the FISA legal explanation is weak. It’s a ruse to hide the covert Op. Of course, one could argue that what they are doing now is disingenuous. They conveniently leave things out. National Security, etc.
I guess what I am saying here is the “program” might not be on US soil run by US citizens using US equipment, etc. Kind of like extra rendition. So, they could say - We know nothing about it. The info just showed up like a gift. No need for FISA or the Congress or the Constitution. Starting to make more sense now?
February 7th, 2006 at 2:17 pmmike - FISA is just fine but they have found a way to make everything irrelevant.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:19 pm#8 - that would be fine if it were only comminications to and from the US, but its not. It’s wiretapping of people inside the US, so there is no way that Isreal could do that.
Not to mention that it has already been reported that the Communications companies provided access to the system trunks for the government to do these wiretaps.
So not really substantial when it comes to the facts.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:19 pm#10 The question is how was the access “system trunks” provided. Satelitte link? That can be done outside the US as well.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:26 pmI’ve floated the theory that there are two programs to wiretap people. One program is the already exposed “Terrorist Surveillance Program”, and it probably does legitimately go after international terrorist calls into or out of the US. But I suspect that there may also be a second secret program that is used to spy on domestic calls. It is this second program (in my opinion) that was used to spy on the domestic groups. When people complain that there is this spying program that targets Americans, the Bush Admin will just say, “No. The TSP only targets international calls from terrorists.” In other words, they would never admit to the second illegal, unconstitutional program and will answer all questions as if people were asking about the first program which, as far as I know, probably is legal.
Just a theory with no hard evidence. (Like Intelligent Design, but with fewer holes in it.)
February 7th, 2006 at 2:26 pmWe don’t have the fact is all I’m saying.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:27 pmBush and his talkies practice doublespeak and disinformation. Orwell would be proud to see his vision of all things to fear come to fruition.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:28 pmOLD law? Aww hell, Bush would be happy if the only laws we had were brought down from Mt. Sinai by Moses on stone tablets.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:30 pmHow old is that law about killing people? Is that an “old law?” Probably should be ignored, not really up to date now is it? Got somebody on the hit list?
February 7th, 2006 at 2:33 pmFISA: Don’t leave home without it.
Have you had enough of the Republican outrage?
Join the revolution http://www.boycott-republicans.com
February 7th, 2006 at 2:34 pm#11 That is the greatest stretch I have heard of. So your gonna tell me that they have tapped into the Trunk, transmitt ALL data to a satelite and then have another country parse the data?
Cumon!
First, it’s possible but not probable. This criminal gang would not want anyone else to see what they are doing.
Second, this would mean that they would have to of setup every point that exits this country with this type of system. No way.
They want to do this with the least amount of attention to the project. Doing it this way would raise too many questions.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:35 pmComment by Wayne A. Schneider
Interesting concept you have there. A bit of a “tin-foil” hat idea though.
But to accept the TSP as legal is preposterous. Why???
Bush’s failure to follow the law made it illegal. HELLO!?!?!?!?!?!?
HAD Bush followed the law and gone to the Judicial Committee for Judicial review and made the necessary revisions to the FISA laws, THEN this would be a non issue. HELLO!?!?!?!?!?!
That is why, what he authorized, needs to be called what it is. WARRENTLESS WIRE TAPPING ON AMERICAN CITIZENS ON US SOIL
February 7th, 2006 at 2:36 pmWe don’t have the fact is all I’m saying.
Comment by california_reality_check
You’re right. We don’t. And I doubt we’re ever going to get the truth from this administration. It just doesn’t seem to be their policy to tell the truth about anything.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:37 pm#19 Hang on a second there, Max.
Monitoring international calls is legal and, I believe, constitutional. This is, officially, what the TSP is about and all I said was that it may very well be legal.
The domestic call monitoring that has been going on has been under a second secret program and it is most certainly NOT legal and constitutional, nor was I suggesting that it was.
What I was saying is that when reporters ask about some spying program that was capturing domestic calls, the Bush Admin would mislead by saying that the TSP only monitors international calls and is legal. In other words, they deflect the issue and give a non-answer. Just like the AG did all day yesterday. He kept referring to aspects of “this program” whenever domestic call monitoring and said that it wasn’t part of “this program.” And I’m suggesting that this would be factually correct if the domestic call monitoring were part of a second still secret program.
But in any event, I do not for one second feel that monitoring domestic calls without getting a warrant (ever)is legal, because it isn’t.
And I use titanium in my hats. It lasts longer.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:44 pm15- Big, cheesy, ostentatious granite blocks in front of the courthouse come to mind.
Is this the winger point du jour? The inapplicability of “old laws?” What next? Don’t have to follow laws written by or signed by members of the opposition party? Bill of Rights infringing on the inherent power of the Executive, and they’re “old laws” to boot? Makes about as much sense.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:46 pmJudd should know better than to raise a straw man like this. The argument is not that FISA doesn’t apply because it’s “old law.” We are using FISA more now than ever before.
The argument on the NSA program is threefold: (1) there are certain narrow enemy surveillance circumstances in which FISA is not useful because of time & technology constraints; (2) there is an even older, more authoritative law, known as Article II of the U.S. Constitution, under which this surveillance is lawful; and (3) there is a subsequent law, the AUMF that gives the President added power to conduct this enemy surveillance.
That’s a pretty simple and straightforwad statement of the issues, regardless of the positions one might take on them. Judd should know better than to try to hoodwink us with straw men and false characterizations of the issues. We are smarter than he gives us credit for.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:47 pm“Bush’s decision to circumvent the law was not one of necessity – it was his choice.”
The President believed it was a choice born out of necessity and the word circumvent implies that he skirted the law which he did not if the law does not apply or is unconstitutional.
This is just another Donk boat riddled with holes that will sink the party. Imagine that because of the insane hatred the Filthy Left has for this good Christian man and leader of legend that they will cause George to be known as the man that destroyed the Democratic party. The Donks are determined to crash their shitty little boat against the indestructible reef that is the George W. Bush presidency. They did the same thing with Reagan. I doubt they’ll get another chance.
You liberal losers that aren’t ratbastardcommiemofos lie the Progressives might want to look at the Libertine Party. They are a bunch of moral degenerates too and I think you’d fit right in.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:53 pm#12 … ever hear of something called TALON/CARNIVORE?
http://www.pbs.org/ cringely/ pulpit/ pulpit20000720.html
February 7th, 2006 at 2:56 pmThree frigging days in a court that conveins within hours? Time does not seem to be a rational concern.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:56 pmBSR - You keep talking the same thing like a parrott. I have already pointed out many many times that the constitution does not provide this inherant power.
I have asked for you to privide where in the constitution it states this, but as of today you have failed to show me this. You post a snipit of the Article II and say here it is, but and because it says this that makes it so.
Show me the line in the constitution that states the presidant can stand alone and not have any oversight?
The AUMF was to use military force. Show me how military force equates to signal intelligance. Force is by a physical means, like what the army does, not with data.
I’m still waiting….. And don’t bring up Handi again… I have already told you that that talks about detaining an American on a battle ground, and it has nothing to do with wiretapping American citizens.
Still waiting.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:57 pm#23 FISA took all those points in consideration. You are providing the strawman.
FISA was not created out of the blue. It took terrorism specifically into account as well as “end of the world” enemies like USSR into account. It was specifically passed to add checks on the president since apparently presidents like Nixon/Bush cannot be trusted to stay within th bounds of the Constitution without EXACTLY spelling out what they can and cannot do.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:00 pmComment by Wayne A. Schneider
Monitoring international calls is legal and, I believe, constitutional. This is, officially, what the TSP is about and all I said was that it may very well be legal.
Don’t tell me you buy the international flight, domestic flight argument that the Administration sells? Big, big hole in it.
That while a flight form Podunk USA to Modunk USA is a domestic flight, the passengers aren’t necessary all domestics. Some may be Canadian, Mexican, Pakistani, etc.
And while a flight between Bofunk USA to Hojunk China might be termed international, there just might be Domestic Americans on board. And they are classified as domestic citizens until they land on foreign soil. Then their called tourists. Not to be confused with terrorists.
So, if the NSA is monitoring a call that involves a citizen of the USA on US soil, regardless of where that call is going to or coming from, then isn’t that wire tapping on a domestic citizen on domestic soil?
And your point doesn’t even address the elephant in the room, it just redirects and diverges the attention from what is…
There was no Judicial Review of the Administration’s plan to work SOMETIMES, WHEN POSSIBLE in accordance to existing law.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:00 pmTalk about doublespeak Bush Admin Talk…
Sheesh,
Hey ROVER, it AINT WORKING BUD, try telling the truth for once.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:01 pmOnly 2 bushies out this fine day? What, is it raining Democrats?
February 7th, 2006 at 3:01 pmRemoveBush - Well, I’m afraid you haven’t constructed the system correctly. I don’t believe the reports from the tel cos either. I’ll let it go. What I have learned about these thugs is that one should NEVER underestimate their audacity.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:03 pm#25 Yes, I have heard of it before, and I didn’t like what I heard. I would be surprised if this wasn;t being fully exploited by our current administration.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:04 pm#1 that is scary. I have seen this pattern with the Bush people oh SALT II was another time in another era, times have changed. The Geneva convention is old and quaint. FISA is old law. I’m sure at some point the constitution will be declared old, quaint and not quite up to the standards of today’s changing times. Of course if this is the case and the radical fringe right accept the argument as easily as they swallow everything else from Bush then how will they recitify their reccurring 10 commandments argument? These are old laws why follow them today?
Right wing nutjobs: Old does nto mean impratical. Old does not mean not useful. Old does not mean unenforceable. Old does nto mean the laws are automatically superceded. Nope the only thing that supercedes old law is new law, period.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:05 pmI have seen the SIGINT Motto.
it Says this.
“In God We Trust
All else Are monitored”
And THAT you can take to the Bank.
Not only that it shows that the people have been ‘monitored’
for some Time.
This removes even more Credibility from Bushs claim. WE have been monitored for some Time, so there WAS no reason For Bushs Warrantless Taps, except for the Obvious one of Political Gain.
IRI COME to Dallas and meet Mr HO.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:05 pmWhy did the administration try to amend FISA in July of 02? http://www.fas.org/ irp/ congress/ 2002_hr/ 073102baker.html
February 7th, 2006 at 3:06 pm#33 Maybe that is your “2nd program” that your theory is talking about.
You make a good point about how people in the christian community lie. They know what you mean but they answer a completely different question that you didnt ask so that they can tell their black little hearts that they are “not really lieing”. HALF A TRUTH IS STILL A LIE. And yes I learned that in church and it is supposed to apply to people in those churches …not just nonrightwingers.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:06 pmBe the MAN IRI,,,.Not just a Voice
February 7th, 2006 at 3:06 pmMr. Ho are you really Don King?
February 7th, 2006 at 3:10 pmYou liberal losers that aren’t ratbastardcommiemofos lie the Progressives might want to look at the Libertine Party. They are a bunch of moral degenerates too and I think you’d fit right in.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — February 7, 2006 @ 2:53 pm
IRI your arguments are now nothing. You at one time actually had a Few points. Now we see that your just rambling on, isulting those you dont know, guessing, Cursing.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:12 pmIts Pretty Pathetic a Grown Man(?) has to resort to petty childish antics.
#Mr. Ho are you really Don King?
Comment by the fly-man — February 7, 2006 @ 3:10 pm
Wha??? WTF? ARE you IRI?
February 7th, 2006 at 3:13 pm“Old law” = bullshit
AS Judd has pointed out, the USA PATRIOT Act updated the FISA Act (redundant) to POST 9/11 status. So, Bush and frineds need to stop living in a pre-9/11 world.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:13 pmI wonder what it’s going to take to get bushe impeached? Congress,do you want to see blood on his hands first????? Do YOUR JOB and start the ball rolling before we have no country left.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:13 pmFly man I dont KNOW what you meant by that remark, on another thread, here on TP, IRI threatened with a George Bush, Size 13 Boot, Ass Whooping.
I accept IRIs’ challenge.
AND NO IM NOT DON KING.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:16 pmIm not gonna take crap off anyone and I never Have, if you wish to call me don king fine, I can accept a good natured ribbing =)
February 7th, 2006 at 3:17 pmNope the only thing that supercedes old law is new law, period.
Comment by Mark — February 7, 2006 @ 3:05 pm
And as long as the law stands unchanged and unchallenged, it must be obeyed regardless of how old it is. Nobody should be able to pick and choose which laws to follow or disregard.
I simply used the Constitution to show how ridiculous Pres Bush’s argument is.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:18 pmWayne A. Schneider and Max-1,
Wayne, our theory, may just be correct.
Three times yesterday, Gonzales used the term “Not the program I am here to testify about today.”
That is not a maybe, he stated that there was another program three times that I am aware of. The first time he said it I was like “What!” So, I listen very carefully for him to say it again and he did at least twice.
Of course, I took bathroom breaks and such, so he might have said that more times.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:18 pm=)
February 7th, 2006 at 3:18 pm#15,
He wouldn’t even be happy with those laws, they include not lying, or killing.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:19 pmWHOA MR. HO, I’ll take liberal commie fvcktard over being called by ole Judge Roy Bean Jr’s handle. I stand down.i just don’t usually pick fights with fools.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:20 pmThe argument on the NSA program is threefold: (1) there are certain narrow enemy surveillance circumstances in which FISA is not useful because of time & technology constraints; BSR
Name these constraints BSR? And please tell why there is nto a possibility to go back 72 hours later? Or if this is defined as war, 15 days later and get the warrants? Why can the spooks do the spook work whiole the lawyers do their job? And please don’t use the Bush only hires incompetants line (hey it was the presidents peopel who said the paperwork was too hard, not me)
(2) there is an even older, more authoritative law, known as Article II of the U.S. Constitution, under which this surveillance is lawful; - BSR
BSR Umm, this is a spurious argument, but please elaborate, where is the case law deciding this in the manner you see fit? The federalist says no. The results of the Nixon era say no. When CLinton claimed executive privledge the courts said no. So please do elaborate.
(3) there is a subsequent law, the AUMF that gives the President added power to conduct this enemy surveillance. - BSR
BSR once agin please elaborate. This appears to be an administration only interpretation. The members of congress who have spoken out on this have explixcitly said, nope that was not our intention. Also remember that no acts of congress or of the president may supercede the constitution. They can work to define the law, but that process must go through the courts. In any case no one can arbitrarily change the constituiton. Or at least that is the way it used to be.
In any case please do put together areal argument with real facts using your own words. Simply parroting the company line implies to me that you don’t know much about what you are talking about. It’s ok to follow the company line of thought, but please do elaborate with your constitutional knowledge. What do you think of what the federalist has to say about the executive branch? Or is that to be ignored because those people were a bunch of whiny liberals?
February 7th, 2006 at 3:21 pmOf course, I took bathroom breaks and such, so he might have said that more times.
Comment by Spudge_Boy — February 7, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
There are so many SIGINT programs out there, the only reason I can think of Bush to create another program is for political malfeasance. But you guys are correct as to what was said.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:22 pmI am just waiting for the day that he says the Constitution is crap because it is “old law.” Oh wait, he basically said that before (see: Constitution is “just a goddamn piece of paper,” says Bush).
February 7th, 2006 at 3:23 pm#WHOA MR. HO, I’ll take liberal commie fvcktard over being called by ole Judge Roy Bean Jr’s handle. I stand down.i just don’t usually pick fights with fools.
Comment by the fly-man — February 7, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
February 7th, 2006 at 3:24 pmUnderstood, but it wasnt me that picked it. It was IRI that layed down the Gauntlet. I have no negative feelings towards you Fly Man. In fact I enjoy your posts.
#23 gets paid to post here. He is fighting an unwinnable battle, what else would motivate him to keep it up. Watching people chase their tails is not enough of a good reason, even that gets old soon enough. So he is mentally ill, or gets paid, or both.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:24 pm#24 gets paid to post here. He is fighting an unwinnable battle, what else would motivate him to keep it up. Watching people chase their tails is not enough of a good reason, even that gets old soon enough. So he is mentally ill, or gets paid, or both.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:25 pmHo and FLy-man, you are letting the paid RNC posters gain headway by turning on one another, don’t do it.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:27 pmMark - The argument that Gonzo made was this. Article II in the absence of specific authority in an emergency. As in the inherent authority to shoot down a plane headed for the Pentagon, for example. We ALL would agree that should be a good idea on its face. Well, would you agree or not?
By the way, see here for more tin foil hat stuff.
http://community.freespeech.org/ forum/ viewtopic.php?forum=9&showtopic=1282&fromblock=yes
February 7th, 2006 at 3:27 pm#29 Okay, Max. You win.
Look, I wasn’t trying to defend the TSP program. I was only trying to make the argument that the reason the adminstration keeps claiming that TSP didn’t monitor domestic-to-domestic calls was because maybe, just maybe, there was a second program that did all that (and it was highly illegal and unconstitutional, so they didn’t want to reveal its existence.)
It seemed to me that whenever anybody asked about the D-to-D monitoring, they always shot back with why their D-to-I or I-to-D calls were okay to monitor (I assume my shorthand is obvious.) They ducked the question and talked about something nobody would argue with, which was monitoring terrorists’ calls. I’m saying they were being completely dishonest in addressing the concerns raised.
For all I know, they’re both unconstitutional and illegal. I was only trying to raise the possibility that while we all talk about it as one program, there might actually be two programs, one of which is even more illegal than the other.
Okay? Can I lower my weapon now, real slow? :)
February 7th, 2006 at 3:29 pmI wear a tinfoil hat every Halloween.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:29 pmHey Spudge Max-1
Perhaps this might offer insite into the Program Gonzales speaks of;
February 7th, 2006 at 3:30 pmCambone has stealthily positioned himself as the most powerful intelligence operator in the Bush administration. On May 8, 2003, Rumsfeld named him Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, a new position which Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz described thus: “The new office is in charge of all intelligence and intelligence-related oversight and policy guidance functions”. In practice, this means that Cambone controls the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, the National Reconnaissance Organization, the National Security Agency, the Defense Security Service and Pentagon’s Counter-Intelligence Field Activity. Cambone meets with the heads of these agencies, as well as top officials at the CIA and National Security Council twice a week to give them their marching orders.
#Ho and FLy-man, you are letting the paid RNC posters gain headway by turning on one another, don’t do it.
Comment by For Truth — February 7, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
Naw, I stated my position. There is no division. Fly Man stated his as well and that is Appreciated. Having worked for many years in Construction and other Fields Such Head Butting is actually Good in a way.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:34 pmThough we may have butted Heads we would still go out after work and have a Beer and Laugh about it
It Happens =)
Thanks, Spudge_Boy,
To be honest, I was speculating off the top of my head. I didn’t watch the hearings, but I’m glad that some very carefully worded answers were given that would support this theory. It would explain why they emphatically deny that the TSP is monitoring domestic groups illegally. It’s because a different program is monitoring domestic groups illegally. And that’s just the kind of underhanded deception I’ve learned to expect from these people.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:35 pmStill waiting.
You might as well keep on waiting, because you don’t seem to know what the heck you’re talking about.
Article II gives the President plenary powers as commander in chief. That means he has both the duty and all the powers necessary to defend the nation against attack, inherent powers recognized explicitly by the FISA court in In Re Sealed Case. In addition, the AUMF authorizes the President to use “all necessary and apropriate force” to fight our terrorist enemies. Not just bullets and bombs, mind you, but “all necessary and apropriate force.” The Hamdi decision interpreted that to mean that the President is authorized to engage in the “fundamental incidents of war.” This specifically includes the detention of enemy combatants at issue in Hamdi, togetehr with all other “fundamental incidents of war” - including the gathering of electronic survaeillance on enemy communications.
Now let’s add some new facts to the mix. Sunday’s WaPo reported that the NSA monitored over 5,000 terrorist calls to people in the U.S. This raises a couple of neat issues:
(1) Does the President have the constitutional power to intercept entirely foreign communications between al Qaeda terrorists in other countries and their operatives in other countries? [Be careful how you answer this one (Hint: if he does, why doesn’t he have the same constitutional power to intercept al Qaeda terrorist comunications entering this country?)].
(2) Does the President have the constutitonal duty to intercept and decipher al Qaeda terrorist calls entering the U.S.? [Careful again, this is where the slope gets slippery. (Hint: if he has the constutional duty, he must also have the constitutional power - regardless of any congressional enactments)].
(3) Is there anything in either FISA or the AUMF that purports to limit the President’s constitutional powers as commander in chief?
Do your homework, now. You can get the right answers if you study hard and use your God-given powers of reasoning.
PS: You will score 50% just for spelling your name right. However, correct answers require civility and citations to the relevant authorities.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:36 pmHere’s another poser: Assuming the President is without power to conduct the NSA program, what is the appropriate constitutional remedy?
(Hint: the correct answer does not require use of the word “bloviating.”)
February 7th, 2006 at 3:38 pmFor Truth, I was trying to help Mr. Ho avoid the endless head banging that IRI can stimulate. Thanks. Does RNC stand for Radical Neo Cons, or Really No Conscience, or Rightous National Commrades?
February 7th, 2006 at 3:40 pm#23 FISA took all those points in consideration. You are providing the strawman.
Really? FISA took into account In Re Sealed Case, and the AUMF, and Hamdi - all of which occurred long after FISA was enacted - not to mention 9/11 and the state of war that followed it? My, how prescient of the FISA authors. Would you mind humoring me with just a small shred of actual PROOF that they were so clairvoyant?
February 7th, 2006 at 3:42 pmLet me give you an analogy that I found helpful with my Pro-Bush friends:
“I used to follow the bible. Then I started to find that it was quite outdated, having been written so long ago. Now I don’t follow it so much.
Keep the faith…or faithless.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:43 pmFor Truth, I was trying to help Mr. Ho avoid the endless head banging that IRI can stimulate. Thanks. Does RNC stand for Radical Neo Cons, or Really No Conscience, or Rightous National Commrades?
Comment by the fly-man — February 7, 2006 @ 3:40 pm
Actually IRI refuses to Answer almost every one of My questions
February 7th, 2006 at 3:44 pmAnd it drives him batty enough to threaten me..
so mr ho continues to TROLL IRI =)
But I appreciate Fly Mans considerations
February 7th, 2006 at 3:44 pmHey check this out at Counterpunch today;
Privatized Data Mining;
In addition, SRS benefited from Cambone’s transfer to the spying wing of the Pentagon. An SRS subsidiary called Torch Concepts was hired by the Pentagon to conduct a data mining foray into passenger records of JetBlue airlines. Bart Edsall, SRS’s vice-president, described the work Torch did this way: “the company got a contract from the Pentagon to work with the Army to ferret information out of data streams [in an effort to detect] abnormal behavior of secretive people”. Sound familiar? It should. The scheme was essentially a privatized version of the kind of work that John Poindexter wanted to conduct with his discredited Total Information Awareness operation.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:46 pm#58 is this a ticking time bomb situation? The president has either 72 hours or 15 days to get the paperwork in order. Seems to me that is not such a big deal especially with a supersecret court offerign near 100% approval. Nope that argument does nto hold water, as there is no emergency to speak of. The argument I hear is that the administration inherently has these powers in a time of war regardless of other laws and that is simply not the case. I only hear that argument coming from the White House/justice department and the punditry. Real consitutional lawyers are saying that is not the case. Real lawmakers are saying that the AUMF did not give the president the authority to spy on Americans.
The problem with this program is that it is being used to spy on American citizens. We have absolutely no assurances that it is only targeting Al Queda types, only the word of “Lets get those WMDs” Bush. Without any oversight (simply telling a few congressional leaders what the situation is, is not oversight) we have no clue that this program is nto being abused. And abused or not, it is still against the constitution according to real constituional scholars and history. Remeber the president has no clue what the consitution says, afterall this administration toted out a senior advisor who had no clue that the words probable cause appear anywhere int he document.
Besides when this is all said and done would you agree that the constitution still protects American citizens rights? If not then throw the damned thing away because 200+ years of use and onterpretation have all been for naught. And every service man who has ever served to protect and defend the constitution of the united states has done so in vain.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:47 pmBSR - I admire your ability to comunicate with us common people. Really I do.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:48 pmBlue State Red is paid to post here.
What else would keep him fighting an unwinnable battle? Only paid Repubs last more than day or two, any other person quickly finds there is no reinforcement/motivation to continue. Well, the definition of crazy is to do the same thing over and over, expecting different results. So its paid, or crazy, or both.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:52 pm#65 your asking for a remedy to a symptom not the bigger pathogen. Is this the only
February 7th, 2006 at 3:53 pmcourse left for law enforcement? The argument “We can’t tell you what we can’t tell you” won’t last long. How about just prove what the President did is legal. AGAIN I ask and no one has responded WHY did the Administration try to amend FISA in 2002? http://www.fas.org/ irp/ congress/ 2002_hr/ 073102baker.html
#72 Look, what I am saying is you have to understand their reasoning. As in know your enemy. Gonzo says FISA doesn’t apply under very limited circumstances. I don’t believe he is lying. Meaning he believes what he says. Now, is wrong about this as he was wrong about the Geneva Convention being quaint? Don’t know yet. Maybe. Not enough facts yet. These folks have an agenda but they are NOT dumb. Well, the chimp is an exception. They have found a loophole. I don’t know what it is yet.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:56 pm“You might as well keep on waiting, because you don’t seem to know what the heck you’re talking about.”
Really? Your the one who seems to not understand what the constitution says.
“Article II gives the President plenary powers as commander in chief. That means he has both the duty and all the powers necessary to defend the nation against attack, inherent powers recognized explicitly by the FISA court in In Re Sealed Case.”
As I have told you in a previous debate….. The Commander in cheif is of the military. Then he cannot order the military to shoot a civilian. There is a thing called military code of justice. Guess who wrote and controlls that????? That’s right! CONGRESS. So you see BSR, the president does not have total power.
“In addition, the AUMF authorizes the President to use “all necessary and apropriate force†to fight our terrorist enemies.”
You need to do a search of the definition of the work “Force”. This does not fit the definition.
“The Hamdi decision interpreted that to mean that the President is authorized to engage in the “fundamental incidents of war.†This specifically includes the detention of enemy combatants at issue in Hamdi, togetehr with all other “fundamental incidents of war†- including the gathering of electronic survaeillance on enemy communications.”
What part of not bringing up Hamdi did you not understand? It was regarding DETAINING AN AMERICAN ON A BATTLE GROUND. Not the same as listening to American phone calls on American soil. Also, in that very case it was also stated that in a wartime situation this does not mean that the president is provided with a blank check.
“(1) Does the President have the constitutional power to intercept entirely foreign communications between al Qaeda terrorists in other countries and their operatives in other countries? [Be careful how you answer this one (Hint: if he does, why doesn’t he have the same constitutional power to intercept al Qaeda terrorist comunications entering this country?)].”
Of Foreign communications; Absolutely. The problem is that he is catching Domestic calls and emails. What part of DOMESTIC do you not understand?
“(2) Does the President have the constutitonal duty to intercept and decipher al Qaeda terrorist calls entering the U.S.? [Careful again, this is where the slope gets slippery. (Hint: if he has the constutional duty, he must also have the constitutional power - regardless of any congressional enactments)].”
See answer #1
“(3) Is there anything in either FISA or the AUMF that purports to limit the President’s constitutional powers as commander in chief?”
Nothing…. Especially since all 3 branches REQUIRE checks and balances. Not one branch has the power to act alone.
Comment by Blue State Red
February 7th, 2006 at 3:57 pmSickos Sickos sickos
The White HOUSE is FULL of Sickos
February 7th, 2006 at 3:58 pmSo IRI is this your Brand of Elected Officials?
February 7th, 2006 at 4:00 pmAre YOU one of these?
Thanks, RemoveBush. Your stab at this is probably better than mine.
The word “plenary†does not appear in the president’s Article II role as “Commmander-in-Chief†of the Armed Forces. His authority as Commander-in-Chief is over the military, not the civilian population. Since his powers are not “plenaryâ€, they are not “full and complete in every respectâ€. There are limits to his authority.
The AUMF gives the president the authority to use our military to go after those that attacked us on 9-11. Stop trying to make it seem like the AUMF was a blank check to go after every terrorist in the world because it wasn’t. And, again, the “necessary force†was to go after those responsible for the attacks of 9-11.
When you are authorized to monitor “enemy communicationsâ€, it means “enemy†in the sense of those that attacked us on 9-11. It does not mean “anybody who disagrees with this administration.â€
Now for the quiz.
1) The president does NOT have the constitutional power to intercept entirely foreign communications between any two people. Our constitution only gives him authority over our country, not the entire world.
2) No, the President does NOT have the constitutional duty to intercept and decipher al Qaeda terrorist calls entering the U.S.? (If you want to hear what a “strict constructionist†or “textualist†would say about this, I imagine they would have to tell you that the constitution is silent on the issue of al Qaeda.) And he could still have a constitutional “duty†without having any constitutional “powersâ€. There are several sections (and amendments) of the constitution that require “appropriate legislation†in order to take effect.
3) I have never read the FISA law (not many around here actually have; most of us rely on what we’ve heard about it), but I have seen the AUMF. Your question, however, is based on the false premise that the president’s role as Commander-in-Chief is plenary, which it is not. His responsibilities as commander-in-chief are determined by what Congress says they are. If the Congress passes a law that says our military cannot be used as a civilian police force, then the president cannot ignore Congress, claim “plenary powers†as Commander-in-Chief, and use the military as a police force.
February 7th, 2006 at 4:07 pmWayne…. VERY WELL PUT! You did better than I did on items 1-3. :)
February 7th, 2006 at 4:11 pm#82 Thanks, RemoveBush. And not a day of law school in my life! (Obviously.) :)
But that won’t stop him from posting the same false arguments tomorrow. (I know because he posted the same false arguments yesterday.)
February 7th, 2006 at 4:52 pmWayne - Your #1 the thugs will argue does not prohibit another power doing exactly that and prpoviding the product to us. No FISA, no Constitution, etc. Very convenient.
February 7th, 2006 at 4:55 pm#77 - Thanks for that ready info!
“Right between the I’s” will always look for a way to excuse the ‘Phants for their rampant immorality. He has a very narrow definition of “morality†when it’s someone with whom he disagrees, and blinders to those with whom he agrees.
Basically, it’s one of those “We can do it, because we’re ‘right’, but you can’t even think about doing the same thing because you’re always wrong!â€
Double standards, thy name is “Right between the I’s”!!
February 7th, 2006 at 5:01 pm#84 c_r_c
Maybe it’s true that they are getting the information from another country’s intelligence services. The problem with that is that if they wanted to charge someone with a crime, the evidence would probably be inadmissable. And that may very well be why they don’t actually arrest all these al Qaeda cell members that they claim are inside the US. They would then also have to be careful about which warrants they do try to get to make sure evidence obtained isn’t considered “fruit of a poisonous tree.”
Not saying your theory is wrong. Just saying I think there are two programs, and they are deliberately being deceptive about which program they talk about and what they refuse to say about what’s going on.
February 7th, 2006 at 5:05 pmThe AG used the phase “Not the program I am here to testify about today.†in addition to referring to “Don’t mingle stories about programs”. I find both of these statements to be hair raising. How many spying on US citizens programs are there?
I am not against the TSP program. I am against there not being any judicial checks/oversight on it. If it turns out in the right wingers favor, a law or constitutional amendment, whichever is required, needs to be passed to make sure the executive branch has oversight over it to make sure regular hardworking American citizens do not have their privacy rights violated. Sorry, I forgot — the right wingers don’t believe in privacy rights. When they say it would be alright if Hillary were President, I don’t believe them.
February 7th, 2006 at 5:05 pmThe only way to get the ‘Phants to support applying the “rule of law” against a President is if the President is a Democrat.
The only way to get the trolls to start thinking about limiting these so-called ‘powers’ that Pres. Bush assigned to himself out of whole cloth is to say one simple phrase.
President Hillary Clinton.
Incredibly doubtful, but just imagine it for the span of 1 minute. Then consider all these ‘powers’ that President Bush is assigning himself ‘just because’. Think about Pres. Clinton using those exact same powers.
Yup, that’ll splash a little bit of reality into the faces of the “now we’re in power forever” trolls.
February 7th, 2006 at 5:07 pmAs a US citizen, let me just stand up and say that if I find anybody spying on ME, I will not care what their excuses are, I will do my very worst to them, whatever I can find. Be it the law or the gun, I will do my best to defend my privacy and my home.
February 7th, 2006 at 5:08 pmWayne A. Schneider,
I have read FISA, let me dig up the old link here.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/ uscode/ html/ uscode18/ usc_sec_18_00002511—-000-.html
There you go. Have fun!
February 7th, 2006 at 5:09 pm#90 Thanks, Spudge! Sorry, Jane, no sex tonight. I’m going to read FISA! (And no, get your own!) :)
Seriously, thanks for the link. I will save it as an offline favorite and peruse it when I have time.
February 7th, 2006 at 5:16 pm#90 On second thought, could you please double check that link? I keep getting a page could not be found error. Thanks.
February 7th, 2006 at 5:18 pmSolitaire — Be ready when you hear that weird clicking on your telephone.
February 7th, 2006 at 5:18 pmwayne - Certainly possible. I think one or many “programs” are off the books. They don’t have a need to bring these folks to trial. They have demonsrtated that. Find them and eliminate them no matter where they are as in Pakistan.
February 7th, 2006 at 5:21 pmHey Wayne, here is what I googled.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ uscode/ html/ uscode50/ usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html
February 7th, 2006 at 5:21 pm#95 Thanks. I’ll try to look at that, too. I noticed that Spudge_Boy’s link goes to Title 18 and yours goes to Title 50. While I was able to modify his link so that I could tell generally where it went, I did not see “FISA” (or its acronym spelled out) on either “title” page (no pun intended).
But at least I can be assured that Cornell has the answers.
February 7th, 2006 at 5:27 pm#94 c_r_c
Maybe you’re right about the lack of any trials being sought. It’s all well and good to claim, as they do, that this is in the interests of national security. What people need to understand about this trampling of constitutional rights is that sometimes the government makes a mistake and grabs the wrong guy. (This is not a hypothetical, it has happened.) With no judicial overview of what is going on, how can any of us feel safe from our own government?
Do they honestly expect us to react to their pleas of “trust us” with anything but hails of derisive laughter ending in a hacking cough?
February 7th, 2006 at 5:32 pmRobinB, I have it covered. Same little gadget works on stalkers, very loud, hopefully very painful.
February 7th, 2006 at 5:35 pmJust read the Feingold speech. Very clear. I hope someone will listen!
February 7th, 2006 at 5:36 pm[…] It’s really reassuring when the President of the United States doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about with regards to one of the biggest scandals of his presidency- and that’s saying something considering the lies that got us into war. […]
February 7th, 2006 at 5:39 pmThe FISA Statute Laws were put in place to prevent a President from illegally wiretapping his political opponents and any others he dislikes! FISA Court Judges have NO problems in issueing warrants for known terrorists!
February 7th, 2006 at 5:40 pmThey would deny warrants for spying on people for political reasons > like on Cindy Sheehan!
Do they honestly expect us to react to their pleas of “trust us†with anything but hails of derisive laughter ending in a hacking cough?
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider
Please consider that we’re in a war and we don’t give a damn how you react. Just make sure that if the spotlight falls on you that you do what you’re told. You are nobody special.
February 7th, 2006 at 5:42 pmThey would deny warrants for spying on people for political reasons > like on Cindy Sheehan!
Comment by Jay Randal
That self serving media whore has proven herself to be an enemy of our country. She should be spied upon if not deported.
February 7th, 2006 at 5:44 pmHey IRI - Show me the declaration of WAR from congress…..
WE ARE NOT AT WAR!
February 7th, 2006 at 5:44 pmI’ve got a new take on all of this. FISA is the law of the land when it comes to wiretapping. For weeks no one in the administration would explain why having 3 days after you start tapping isn’t enough time to make things work. Now we are starting to get a “story”. Recently I’ve heard Hayden and others say that because of all of the levels of beaurocracy that need to be gone through in order for the attorney general to authorize the wiretap (which will within 3 days go to a FISA court), 3 days just isn’t enough time.
So here’s the obvious question. If congress is OK with the NSA having 3 days of wiretapping before the court approval comes in, wouldn’t they be OK with a week or even two weeks? If Bush had come to congress and said, change that “3″ to a “10″, who would have said no? Instead, Bush frames the issue as following the current law vs. asking congress to allow warrantless wiretapping. This is a false choice and clearly bush made the wrong one.
February 7th, 2006 at 5:45 pmAs a US citizen, let me just stand up and say that if I find anybody spying on ME, I will not care what their excuses are, I will do my very worst to them, whatever I can find. Be it the law or the gun, I will do my best to defend my privacy and my home.
Comment by Solitaire
Good for you. Tell that to the dead children in Waco.
February 7th, 2006 at 5:46 pmThe members of congress who have spoken out on this have explixcitly said, nope that was not our intention.
The private intentions of legislators - especially those aided by hindsight - do not constitute legislative intent. For that, one must always look first to the language of the statute, to the plain meaning of its words, and to the rules of statutory construction.
The most telling evidence that the AUMF expanded the President’s inherent constitutional powers, for example, is the rule that no statute should be so construed as to render it meaningless. Thus, the President must have greater powers with the AUMF than without it. The words “all necessary and appropriate force” are broad in their plain meaning, and they explicitly grant power to the President while leaving tactical means and menthods to his discretion. This is why the Hamdi court found the AUMF to be an authorization to engage in all the “fundamental incidents of war.”
In addition, there is the fact that congressional leaders were repeatedly briefed on this program, but no one introduced any legislation prohibiting the NSA program or imposing congressional requirements on it. Thus, if any congressional intent is relevant here, apart from the original legislative intent, it is the failure of congress, even at this late date, to enact prohibitions or restrictions on the NSA program.
February 7th, 2006 at 5:51 pmWayne - Behold! This is what we have to deal with.
February 7th, 2006 at 5:51 pmI hope I-Right-I is on the NSA wiretap list > lol.
They would dig up lots of dirt on him to blackmail him to continue humping for Bush on here > lol.
Cindy Sheehan has a right to her views > she might be elected Senator for California next November!
February 7th, 2006 at 5:52 pm“The most telling evidence that the AUMF expanded the President’s inherent constitutional powers, for example, is the rule that no statute should be so construed as to render it meaningless. BlueStateRed”
Oh sweetie, that’s just silly. The constitutional powers of the president are limited by the constitution - to change those would require an amendment. Partisan brain sure does make republicans say the most insanely silly things.
I forgive you though, clearly your understanding of the constitution and america are too limited to allow you to understand the american system of government. I’m sure you mean well, no matter how silly and unrelated your comments tend to be. You’re clearly doing the best you can with the material this administration’s partisans provide you pumpkin.
February 7th, 2006 at 6:00 pmI finally decided today to look up the signing statement that went along with the AUMF. Since Bush likes to use them to clearly outline what he believes a law gives him the right to do, I thought it would be interesting to learn what HE thought at the time he signed the AUMF. The ONLY sentence that refers to this is:
“In signing this resolution, I maintain the longstanding position of the executive branch regarding the President’s constitutional authority to use force, including the Armed Forces of the United States and regarding the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution.”
Hmm, nothing about electronic surveillance. Also, the AUMF is the Authorization to Use MILITARY Force. How is his warrantless wiretapping program a military force program?
The full signing statement can be found at Oops! Should Have Changed This!!
February 7th, 2006 at 6:27 pmHey BSR, still waiting for your proof of where in the constitution the president is given inherant power? You seem to only keep spouting the same thing, which I have debunked time and time again.
Gongress has the power to limit the president. i.e. Congress writes the laws, controlls the military spending and the laws that it must follow, means that Congress can limit an illegal act upon the Contitution.
As I have told you in a previous debate….. The Commander in cheif is of the military. Then he cannot order the military to shoot a civilian. There is a thing called military code of justice. Guess who wrote and controlls that????? That’s right! CONGRESS. So you see BSR, the president does not have total power.
“In addition, there is the fact that congressional leaders were repeatedly briefed on this program, but no one introduced any legislation prohibiting the NSA program or imposing congressional requirements on it. Thus, if any congressional intent is relevant here, apart from the original legislative intent, it is the failure of congress, even at this late date, to enact prohibitions or restrictions on the NSA program.”
Yeah, and it was highly classified subject that NO ONE COULD TALK ABOUT. Since Bush would not allow them to say anything about the program, what can they do? Break the law and go to jail? That would only be something your president would do. People who actually have a shred of integrity to our laws don’t do that.
February 7th, 2006 at 6:40 pmIts obvious, Bush is spying on people. The FISA court probably denied some requests even though the quantum of proof is less than probable cause. I saw the craven Jane Harman whining on the tube this afternoon. Her and others like her are the reason there is not more of an outrage. Rockefeller should testify before the judiciary or the foreign relations committee. He has a letter he wrote complaining about the program. If he’s afraid to do that he should jump in Bush’s pocket. He could join everyone else who want to trade their freedom for protection from the terrorists.
February 7th, 2006 at 6:42 pmI hope I-Right-I is on the NSA wiretap list > lol.
They would dig up lots of dirt on him to blackmail him to continue humping for Bush on here > lol.
Cindy Sheehan has a right to her views > she might be elected Senator for California next November!
Comment by Jay Randal
Cindy Sheehan has shit and fallen back into it. She won’t even be a footnote to a footnote. As for me, I’m sure I’m tapped but it’s only because I know they’re stealing my material. They don’t have to do a thing to get me to beat up on you crack babies on Think Communist.
February 7th, 2006 at 6:45 pmPost 114 > spoken like a true hard core fascist I-Right-I, but you do NOT beat up anybody on here > they beat you up!
February 7th, 2006 at 7:03 pmThe Commander in cheif is of the military. Then he cannot order the military to shoot a civilian.
Actually, he can, if the circumstances call for it. For example, it is well known that the President could have ordered the shoot-down of United Flight 93 if the passengers had not caused their plane to crash. He had the power, as comander in chief, to order the military to shoot down a plane full of civilians to protect the government from further attack. And he didn’t need approval from Congress or the Judiciary to do so. That’s because he has plenary powers as commander in chief.
The same is true of electronic surveillance of enemy communications. The President has the power to spy on our enemies in a time of war, to learn their plans, and to thwart them if possible. Such surveillance has a military purpose when it is directed at an enemy who has declared war and attacked us. This is why Article II, In Re Sealed Case, the AUMF and Hamdi, together with Congress’ inaction since 2002, all come together to support the President in this case.
There is one way to test all of this, of course: Let’s have an up-or-down vote on it. How about a vote on the following joint resolution of Congress: Resolved, it is the sense of the Congress that the President shall immediately cease and desist from any and all warrantless electronic surveillance, and shall not conduct any electronic surveillance of any kind without a warrant issued upon probable cause. Let’s get everyone on the record on this issue.
February 7th, 2006 at 7:10 pmOK BSR - Give up your Civil Rights. I suggest that you join the military, since you obviously have not served, then perhaps you might realize the error of your ways.
I’m not discussing this with you anymore as you don’t seem to understand the Constitution.
I can’t help it, but one last comment.
“For example, it is well known that the President could have ordered the shoot-down of United Flight 93 if the passengers had not caused their plane to crash. He had the power, as comander in chief, to order the military to shoot down a plane full of civilians to protect the government from further attack.”
No he did not, but in an event that many peoples lives are in immediate danger, i.e. planes being flown into buildings by the government, then of course he could shoot down the plane. However, he can’t just order a solder to shoot an American citizen for crossing the street not in a cross walk.
“The same is true of electronic surveillance of enemy communications. The President has the power to spy on our enemies in a time of war, to learn their plans, and to thwart them if possible. Such surveillance has a military purpose when it is directed at an enemy who has declared war and attacked us. This is why Article II, In Re Sealed Case, the AUMF and Hamdi, together with Congress’ inaction since 2002, all come together to support the President in this case.”
NO NO NO. The president does not have that power. Hence the FISA law. WE ARE NOT AT WAR. If you can show me the DECLARATION OF WAR, then I would agree that the president does in fact have more power. However, he was given the authorization to use the military to go after the terrorists. Do you not understand that if Congress can control the military and essentially force the president to pull troops out by not funding the military. So if he has such great power to do what every he desires, then why can’t he just finance the war without Congress? Congress controls more of the military than the president. Congress also makes the rules that the military MUST follow: Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). So if the president is so powerful, then why is it that he can’t tell the military how they will conduct themselves?
Hamdi, ONCE AGAIN is regarding detaining an American on a battle field. Not wiretapping Domesticly in the US.
Now go and learn the constitution.
February 7th, 2006 at 7:26 pmDo you not understand that if Congress can control the military and essentially force the president to pull troops out by not funding the military.
Okay, let’s have a vote on that question. It wouldn’t get a single vote, except maybe for Cynthia McKinney’s and Barbara Lee’s.
The point is, as long as our troops are deployed in the theater of combat, the President has plenary powers to engage in the fundamental incidents of war. That includes learning when and where the enemy plans to strike by directing the eyes and ears of our intelligence resources to conduct surveillance of enemy communcations. Congress and the Judiciary don’t get to micromanage such tactical decisions, no matter how much huffing and puffing they do on the nightly news.
February 7th, 2006 at 7:41 pmBSR - NO ONE IS SAYING THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN NOT OR SHOULD NOT LISTEN TO FOREIGN INTELLIGANCE. What part of Domestic Spying do you not understand. GEEZE. This criminal is listening to Citizens. Quakers, and many others. So now the quakers are terrorists? This is the problem.
I’ll go for a vote as long as the nation votes, not the criminally run Republican Congres. If your willing to hold a special vote by the country, then I’m all for it. I will bet that more people will vote to withdraw the troops, to a place that they will not be attacked everyday and make Iraq stand up for themselves.
If your willing to do that, THEN I’M ALL FOR IT!
February 7th, 2006 at 7:49 pmsure they do pumpkin. That’s the job of the judiciary. I know it seems complicated, being a grown up concept and all, but that’s the way the government works pumpkin.
Comment by RightPunch
Homosexual?
February 8th, 2006 at 9:30 amWhy IRI, are you looking to slurp some of the man juice?
February 8th, 2006 at 10:42 am[…] Think Progress has the rest. […]
February 9th, 2006 at 2:27 pmSpeaking of tools, George, go look in the mirror!
February 14th, 2006 at 11:34 pm[…] DeWine’s solution completely overlooks the major problem with Bush’s illegal domestic spying program. The administration has argued that FISA doesn’t apply to its program, and DeWine simply wants to embed that viewpoint into law. By doing so, the DeWine legislation would grant authority to the administration to continue to conduct its program without any legal checks or safeguards on its powers. […]
February 15th, 2006 at 2:15 pm[…] DeWine’s solution completely overlooks the major problem with Bush’s illegal domestic spying program. The administration has argued that FISA doesn’t apply to its program, and DeWine simply wants to embed that viewpoint into law. By doing so, the DeWine legislation would grant authority to the administration to continue to conduct its program without any legal checks or safeguards on its powers. DeWine should know better. His efforts to reform FISA were disingenuously rejected in 2002 by the Justice Department. The administration clearly has no problem misleading Congress about its program, and DeWine now wants to reward Cheney and other administration officials by giving them a legal blank check. Explore posts in the same categories: Illegal Surveillance […]
February 16th, 2006 at 3:54 pm[…] Specter appears to have received assurances from the White House that, if his bill is passed without changes, Bush would agree to exercise the option and submit the warrantless wiretapping program to the court for a judgment on its constitutionality. This compromise is a sham because it makes optional what Bush is already required to do. Under the FISA law, the administration can wiretap persons inside the U.S. But it is required to demonstrate that the targets are agents of a foreign power, like al Qaeda or their affiliates. […]
July 13th, 2006 at 3:08 pmJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:02 amFree Granny Porn Milf Camps Friend’s Hot Mom
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 26th, 2008 at 4:41 amSex Girls Having Sex Rough Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 31st, 2008 at 12:12 pmYoung Girls Youngest Boys Gallery Young Girls Naked
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 1st, 2008 at 12:33 amNo Fax Payday Loans
Challenge arvel pay day loans for Taxi-Drivers
April 1st, 2008 at 2:21 pmPayday Loan
Business Operations Specialists visit Payday-Loan-Place.com when they want quick payday loans in a pressuring situation, or only need a surplus of funds in their wallets .
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:08 am