Carl Cameron Follows Bush’s Instructions On How To Describe Warrantless Domestic Wiretapping
Carl Cameron Follows Bush’s Instructions On How To Describe Warrantless Domestic Wiretapping
Since January, the White House has tried to re-brand their domestic warrantless wiretapping program as a “terrorist surveillance program.†The goal is to make critics of the program’s legality seem weak on terrorism.
So far, the White House press corps hasn’t bought it. But today, Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron became the first reporter use the term “terrorist surveillance program†during a White House press conference.
From today’s Press Conference:
THE PRESIDENT: Carl.
CAMERON: Thank you, sir. On the subject of the terrorist surveillance program -
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
CAMERON: — not to change the tone from all this emphasis on bipartisanship, but there have been now three sponsors to a measure to censure you for the implementation of that program.
Cameron is not only doing the administration’s bidding – he is not doing his job. The term “terrorist surveillance program” could refer to any number of programs, many of which have been around for decades and are not at all controversial.
The program at issue is different precisely because it is conducted a) without a warrant and b) involves people on U.S. soil. That’s why it’s accurately described as a warrantless domestic wiretapping program.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I am so happy that Fox news is parroting whatever the RNC talking points may be.
March 21st, 2006 at 3:52 pmSomeone better make sure Carl Cameron isn’t a gay escort.
March 21st, 2006 at 3:52 pmI think we should have a tea party at FOX headquarters.
March 21st, 2006 at 3:57 pmMan, that Cameron is pasty white, ain’t he?
March 21st, 2006 at 3:59 pmHow many days until Carl Cameron gets a political appointment to some post that he’s not qualified in any way for?
March 21st, 2006 at 3:59 pmCameron was later seen emerging from under W’s desk.
March 21st, 2006 at 4:00 pmWingNuts don’t seem to remember what happened to Hilter’s stooges after the war. WingNuts should be more cautious what they say in public. It might come back to bite them where it really hurts.
March 21st, 2006 at 4:02 pmDid he get a bisquit and a pat on his head?
March 21st, 2006 at 4:05 pmCarl Cameron is also the fauxbot who did that phony news report about Kerry being a metrosexual that wound up on the faux news site “accidently” during the campaign.
March 21st, 2006 at 4:13 pmHot Carl Cameron
March 21st, 2006 at 4:14 pmFOX news is the worst news organization on this planet. It is the Aljeziera for the White House and the Republican Party. And that Mr. Hume should be lawfully banned from the front of a camera and microphone.
March 21st, 2006 at 4:19 pm
March 21st, 2006 at 4:19 pmGO KARL!
March 21st, 2006 at 4:20 pmCarl works for Fox. Shilling for Republicans is his job.
March 21st, 2006 at 4:21 pmThere is an apartment building in Dallas that is for the elderly and partly funded by christian charities. The only cable news network they recieve is Fox news all others are blocked. I am not saying that CNN or MSNBC are much better than Fox, but how scared can you be if you don’t let a bunch of old folks get a chance to hear (the truth) perhaps a different point of view.
March 21st, 2006 at 4:23 pmOf course, when the President or his Press Secretary or any other spokesperson in the Administration or any Paid Media Hack (such as the one cited here) refer to a “terrorist surveillance” program, they use a term that purposefully evades the very reason that the issue is being discussed: The ‘warrantless’ nature of that surveillance.
And not only has the President, et al, amazingly gotten this far evading giving a satsfactory answer as to why they don’t seek a warrant from the FISA Court for this surveillance, they continue to use the term “terrorist” as though we’re to believe that “terrorists” are the targets of this warrantless surveillance.
And this assertion of theirs as to the “terrorist” targets of this warrantless surveillance, plays too greatly on a Faith and Trust and Credibility that this Administration thinks it has with the American People, but which it does not.
And it simply underscores the point of seeking and receiving a warrant, that that warrant becomes also the legal record of the target of the surveillance…
…which without the same, we’re left to just Trust this Administration, which we don’t.
A situation the Administration could easily rectify if they would just seek warrants for such surveillance from the FISA Court, or otherwise make a satisfactory answer to the question of why they do not.
March 21st, 2006 at 4:25 pmisn’t there an amendment in the Constitution that says you can’t search somebody unless they have a search warrant?
I thought so, but since you’re the president who is scared and on the run all of the time, it’s ok to search anybody without a search warrant.
So much for the fourth amendment.
There’s a political detention facility waiting for you.
What the heck, who needs a constitution?
Let’s just have wars all of the time and have everyone a prisoner somewhere. You can make even more money.
March 21st, 2006 at 4:28 pm
March 21st, 2006 at 4:28 pmDoesn’t it just piss you off when someone says “well if you don’t have anything to hide why are you worried?”
I do not remember not having something to hide having been written into the constitution. That is until now!
March 21st, 2006 at 4:31 pmgood one! #12 read your rights – very funny indeed! much needed!
March 21st, 2006 at 4:36 pmdid you catch that bennett cartoonist on c-span recently?
good segment!
And regarding (incidentally) the Paid Media Hack in question here, and his employer FOX News Channel:
These folks may think that they risk little or nothing at a time like this, defending the lies and crimes of the Administration (lies and crimes they, FOX, are aiders and abettors to), but they’re wrong.
When it’s all said and done, and the American People have recaptured their Congress and the administration of Federal Government from these liars and criminals, it will be remembered by most, if not all, who it was who sided with those criminals and liars at a time like this; who it was who aided and abetted those lies and crimes…
FOX News Channel has more to risk than they think; they will be remembered for their part, when the American People recapture their Government.
And if those American People should in any way have forgotten, I and others will be more than pleased to remind them.
March 21st, 2006 at 4:37 pmCameron is one step away from Colbert territory: President Bush: great president, or greatest President ever?
March 21st, 2006 at 4:49 pm#23 – Great President! If liberals hate him, he is doing his job. Liberals HATE America!
March 21st, 2006 at 4:53 pmKatrina – how much military time do you have under your belt?
March 21st, 2006 at 4:59 pmFaux news at their best speading bush’s Nazi smackdowns …….
How I would love to pull the plug on Faux News and watch screeching Hannity,Came-boy and O’liely walk the streets looking for a job.
March 21st, 2006 at 5:02 pm#23 Hmm, confusing the leader with the country and accusing other people of treason becuase of their politics are hallmarks of fascism. Are you a fascist Katrina?
March 21st, 2006 at 5:02 pmhow about the: ‘Warrentless spy on Americans Program’…
March 21st, 2006 at 5:21 pmDon’t forget Cameron’s wife is close to the Bush women and he, himself, considers himself one of Bush’s friends.
March 21st, 2006 at 5:37 pmJust another day at Fox news – the electronic messenger for the White House.
What’s next? Cameron spends the night at the WhiteHouse with Preznit Numbnuts? Ala Mr. Gannon?
ITMFA now!
March 21st, 2006 at 5:44 pmAl – Jazeera is an excellent news organization. To compare it to Faux News is ludicrous. Don’t be an ass.
March 21st, 2006 at 6:17 pmReading all this overwrought consternation over the use of a phrase that is actually descriptive, and absent the paranoid spin that it’s been given by the lunatic left, is just too delicious.
Big thanks for the laughs.
March 21st, 2006 at 6:22 pmj.c. – you’ve been here, right? “ITMFA Going Strong”
March 21st, 2006 at 6:26 pmeveryone should check it out!
“discriptive” but not necessarily totally accurate…
March 21st, 2006 at 6:29 pm#31 said, “Reading all this overwrought consternation over the use of a phrase that is actually descriptive…”
I’m guessing the poster was referring to the phrase “terrorist surveillance programâ€. So what have been the results of this program–how many “terrorists” have been caught, and how many “terrorist actions” have been thwarted?
I’ll wager that it’s been exactly 0; otherwise FAUX would have been trumpeting the capture of “terrorists” or foiling a “terrorist plot” 24/7.
March 21st, 2006 at 6:36 pmwhat do YOU think? “quickvote”
March 21st, 2006 at 6:42 pmhttp://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/
When I heard Cameron ask that question all I think was Rove must be jumping up and down saying “YES, GOOD MAN”! Cameron is such a coward its unbelievable. Who now is going to ask Cameron if it is better that presidents should only be censured during a time of peace? What a freaking idiot he is.
March 21st, 2006 at 6:49 pmBush looks very mean and angry at every press conference now, so his happy facade is wearing away, and revealing the true nasty man inside him! He is a budding Stalin dictator, so America is in big trouble!
March 21st, 2006 at 6:56 pm#37 – Bush looks very mean and angry at every press conference now, so his happy facade is wearing away, and revealing the true nasty man inside him! He is a budding Stalin dictator, so America is in big trouble!
Did Emperor Bush play the lead role on V for Vendetta? It sure looks like him, all passionate fury at “terrorists” and all that.
March 21st, 2006 at 7:30 pm#35 – The poll stands at:
Help 7% with 547 votes
Hurt 93% with 7620 votes
Hmmmm…. Keep talk’n Mr. Bush. Keep Talk’n.
ITMFA now!
March 21st, 2006 at 7:32 pmCongress keeps dancing around on the NSA activity. What are they afraid of: Call it what it is — illegal. But are you tired of the inaction? It would be nice of there was a law that compelled Congress to do something.
There is a way to address this mess: We are allowed to draft a new Constitution which can strip Members of Congress of their immunity, and force them to assert power, or lose that power. Here’s how we can write a New Constitution outside Article V, details [Click ].
But that’s just the beginning; the next step is to actually draft the New Constitution. But, you’re in for a surprise: Guess what’s been written for you to consider as a solution to this Mess: That’s right a New Constitution: [ Draft New Constitution for your debate: Here, Click ]
Congress has until 1 April 2006 to lawfully remove the President for his self-evident abuse of power; or we the People will begin debating a New Constitution. Voting will start this summer.
Tell your friends: 1. We can write a new Constitution outside Article V; and 2. There are drafts of the New Constitution floating around — what changes do you want; and what solutions do you want? Nobody can stop you from blogging. There is a solution to this mess; the issue is whether you want to be treated the same, or compel the Government to do its job: Protect rights and prevent the abuse of power.
March 21st, 2006 at 7:45 pmYou could not provide a more senseless explanation than this ….
March 21st, 2006 at 7:52 pmThe program at issue is different precisely because it is conducted a) without a warrant and b) involves people on U.S. soil. That’s why it’s accurately described as a warrantless domestic wiretapping program. “a” is true but made invalid because of the deliberate omission of the necesssary complete truth of “b”. That truth being that it only involves calls made to suspected terrorist in specific foriegn areas. I don’t believe that you are not fully aware of that fact. And I don’t care that you, or “Cyra Brown” ( or whatever the name of that guy that gets so riled up when I post here ) are upset that I said so.
March 21st, 2006 at 8:23 pmDidn’t Carl Cameron’s wife work for Bush’s presidential campaign?
March 21st, 2006 at 8:50 pmLooks like Cameron got the Top 10 GOP Sound Bites:
March 21st, 2006 at 8:53 pmComment by William Sire — March 21, 2006 @ 7:52 pm
How do you KNOW, I mean really KNOW, that they are only monitoring calls involving individuals with ties to terrorism? If you do know this beyond the shadow of a doubt, how about providing us with some tangible irrefutable proof of said fact? The fact of the matter is that the Administration wants the American people to trust them and their intelligence apparatus. Remember that this is the same intelligence apparatus that was (allegedly – I think it was by design) “dead wrong” about Iraq’s WMD programs by their (and the Administration’s) own admission. If they could, by their own admission, be dead wrong about something as important as the reason given to send our men and women into battle, what on Earth would make you trust them about this?
What’s is really at issue here is NOT that they are listening to terrorists. I’m quite certain that there isn’t a single person here who doesn’t think we should be monitoring individuals with known ties to terrorism. What is at issue is the fact that there is a legal mechanism already in place for them to do what they say they have done but they chose to go around it! According to both the 4th amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Securities Act, it is unlawful for ANY government agency to monitor individuals on American soil. And, if you had planned on trotting out the Article II talking point (”He has the right as Commander in Chief under Article II Section 1 of the Constitution”) you need to go back and look up the word directly following “4th” above. The 4th amendment is, just that, an amendment (formal alteration or addition) to the original document…the ENTIRE original document. What that means in a court of law is that the 4th Amendment to the Constitution SUPERCEDES and takes precedence over Article II. As I said before, everyone I have spoken with about this issue, be they Democrat Republican or Independant, has stated that we should monitor individuals with known ties to terrorists. That does NOT, however, change the law of the land. Thomas Jefferson once said, “We are either a nation of laws, or a nation of men.” We have been a nation of laws for 230 years and it has reaped us the benefits of technology, innovation, and foresight. In short, the Constitution has served us very well! It is time for those of you on your side of the political spectrum to realize that this issue is not a right or left, blue or red, liberal or conservative issue. This is an American issue and unless we do everything in our power to preserve our Democratic way of life, we are going to lose it. Regardless, if you don’t like your rights, move to North Korea. I, however, am not willing to give up one iota of the freedom and liberty granted me by the Constitution because you are a coward.
March 21st, 2006 at 9:14 pmOops! Correction:
According to both the 4th amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Securities Act, it is unlawful for ANY government agency to monitor individuals on American soil.
should read:
According to both the 4th amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Securities Act, it is unlawful for ANY government agency to monitor individuals on American soil without first obtaining a warrant.
March 21st, 2006 at 9:16 pmGreen917; you asked a good question/made a good point: “How do you KNOW, I mean really KNOW, that they are only monitoring calls involving individuals with ties to terrorism?” That’s the point: We don’t know — all the reason why Congress should be compelled to find out.
Is there anyone out there — lurkers, yes you — is there any lurker out there who has any notion of what they prefer other than this mess?
Do you want to have a solution; or do you want to get the run around? Feel free to post: Are you interested in a solution to this mess; or do you want more of the same? I can’t waste your time giving you a solution unless you really want it. Or do you want more evidence of violations of rights/abuse of power?
If I gave you proof of everything you suspect — what then? What is your answer: How will you compel Congress to do what it refuses? Do you want a solution how to do this; do you want to know how the lessons of Iraq can be solved and applied to make this country better?
If you do not care, then skim over this. Stop reading. Go back to sleep. Why do you bother reading information if you have no hope for a solution; and are not interested in what could be done? If you do not want to talk about Iraq or solutions — tell me: Why do you bother reading this site if you have given up, and refuse to even speak about what might be a solution?
March 21st, 2006 at 9:54 pmGood answer Constant! ..to add to that, the acusation is as if people knew beyond the shadow of doubt that we are listening in on domestic calls. Not one shread of evidence has been provided in the months of debate over this subject to even be suspicious of that going on. We are just to take the angry oposition at their word.
That is my response to you as well Green917. Just becasue you don’t like George Bush is not eveidence that his “Terrorist Surveillance Program” , which I doubt you ever examined, is illegal, or violates the rights of american citzens.
You stated … What is at issue is the fact that there is a legal mechanism already in place for them to do what they say they have done but they chose to go around it! As well there is a legal mechanism that allows the federal government to do so. ( I have read it but I don’t have the resource available to post it here ) I have confidence in it, you don’t. But I don’t want you, without evidence, to accept it. However where ever I have seen that law presented in public debate, and you have eluded to it yourself, for the purposes of continuing your baseless accusation you dismiss it. And that too is acceptable, you are well within your rights to do so. But then that is not enough. You continue to make the declaration, without any evidence, not even enough evidence to raise resonable suspicion, that your accusation is fact. Even to the degree that you ( not specifically you but the argument on your side ) will even demand the terms of the argumet give credence to your accusation. Case in point >>>
This is what I find so ridiculous. You want me to term my argument so that you win ??!!! NO ! I don’t agree with you. No matter how strongly you feel or what articles you can link to or even you obvious education, you are not absolute. You are not absolute becasue you are not factual in your premise or agrument. If you were I would immediately yield to you. But the true premise is you hate George Bush. Everything else desends from that. There is some truth in research but mostly tainted by hatred for George Bush with a lot of fishing and wishful thinking.
In truth I can respect your position against George Bush. But you cannot, or rather will not aknowledge that for the truth it is. Your position is not an American issue as you stated. Your view does not speak for America and is not an issue of concern for the populace. There are no cowards here. And free men do what they must to remain so. If necessary it is called sacrafice. When you have to defend those liberties you so enjoy from those who wish to take them and your life a well, you will know what that means.
March 21st, 2006 at 10:57 pmIn truth I can respect your position against George Bush. But you cannot, or rather will not aknowledge that for the truth it is. Your position is not an American issue as you stated.
In truth I can respect your position against George Bush. But you cannot, or rather will not aknowledge it is your postion only for the truth it is.
March 21st, 2006 at 11:05 pmlooks like the spitting cobra has been irrated. watch out whoever is in the front war.
March 21st, 2006 at 11:05 pmdang just had to look at the pic again. thought that was hitler. if i thought there would be a devil and hadn’t seen him. well, i think i just did.
March 21st, 2006 at 11:07 pmWilliam Sire, You made a good point: “Not one shred of evidence has been provided in the months of debate over this subject to even be suspicious of that going on.”
Indeed, the burden or proof is on government, yet we have nothing.
Mr. Sire, you also well state, “But the true premise is you hate George Bush. Everything else descends from that. There is some truth in research but mostly tainted by hatred for George Bush with a lot of fishing and wishful thinking. ” This I believe is what is a valid concern with people’s questions.
Indeed, if we accept your premise as true — which I believe is the case — could we no agree we do have on missing answer: Namely, if we agree that there is hatred for Bush; can we also not agree that the focus is on the hatred, rather than what we do or do not know.
I am for open dialog; and I am for reasonable inquiry. You well state — there is no evidence — but is this true? I see little interest to state, “There is no problem”; rather, I see the Congress stating the opposite: “We shall not look.” I would rather admit there are two issues: There is hatred for Bush; and Congress does not look.
Is this how you read this, or am I missing your point?
March 21st, 2006 at 11:14 pm#50 front row, oops!
March 21st, 2006 at 11:15 pmbs,
Is the spitting cobra something that has a name? Forgive me for not understanding which comments are connected to the spitting cobra.
March 21st, 2006 at 11:17 pmbushes pic, sorry
March 21st, 2006 at 11:18 pmAll,
Let us presume — simply for the sake of argument — that the White House is correct, and the DNC allegations are false: Namely, there is no evidence of wrongdoing. Would it not be in the interests of the White House to prove to the public that the DNC is wrong; and that the voters should support the RNC?
A reasonable person would conclude: The RNC — if they are doing nothing wrong — would use this event of the NSA activity to their advantage: To show there is no problem; and the basis for the concern is empty. Yet, we appear to have the opposite: Assertions, without a fair showing. Surely, if the NSA activity was “no big problem” — why was the White House upset at the disclosure?
Some say the disclosure would tell others what we were or were not doing. However, there is one small problem: The FBI and DoJ — according to the open media — were already aware that those they were watching were using other methods. So although I agree that we have no evidence, it makes one wonder: If there is no problem, and the disclosure was a problem — why the failure to mention what was actually happening: That those we were targeting had changed their communication before the disclosure?
I remain open to being convinced as to why the White House is this upset about disclosures over something that was also well known. Bolton publicly admitted that the NSA had intercepted information, and that he had transcripts. Nothing in the NYT revelations revealed technical details. Rather, when taking the broad view, one has to make adverse inferences: We have nothing to warrant confidence that the “concern” was based on a real concern of disclosures: Those disclosures were already irrelevant in that those we targeted had already changed.
So I remain open: What could explain the concern? We need not wait for endless investigations; we are in a position to make adverse judgments. The government has the burden to justify confidence and faith that they are legitimately protecting rights and not abusing power. We need not wait for Congress to “get around” to doing something; it is well within a reasonable option to make adverse inferences about the reasons for the White House conduct; where there is “no evidence” of wrong doing, there should be some consistency with the White House story: Those who are doing the right thing should have a simple story.
Unfortunately, all we have is what we publicly have: Supposedly “nothing wrong” going on; but responses that are not consistent; and legal arguments that are at odds with case law. Bluntly, a well grounded and lawful activity — putting aside the evidence for the moment — should have a well grounded legal argument. Again, this is not to say that there is or is not evidence; rather, the legal arguments — if they were connected to a lawful program — should have consistent and succinct points. Again, we have the opposite.
I am willing to listen to good reason why there is not a reason to make adverse inferences. Yes, I accept there are those who hate Bush; but the hatred for a man is different than the arguments he may or may not make. I will agree to separate the two issues — hatred from arguments — and let you show me why I should not make adverse inferences. So far, you have well stated your points and I remain eager to read more.
March 21st, 2006 at 11:29 pm#48 Mr. Sire,
First of all, I never stated that I was absolute in any way, shape, or form. What I stated was that FISA (since 1978) is the SOLE arbiter of the government’s ability to monitor the communications of persons on American soil. That is written into the law itself! The President of the United States chose to ignore the law!
More importantly, I don’t hate George Bush. I do, however, hate the policies he and his administration have enacted. You alluded to my learning to see the light after I have had to defend my freedom. Perhaps I should properly introduce myself. I am Senior Airman Green, formerly of the 62nd Wing of the Air Mobility Command (McChord AFB, WA). I have defended freedom (both mine and yours), I have seen the battlefield, seen blood shed in the defense of our nation’s liberty. I have to wonder if you can say the same. If you want to take pot shots at my patriotism or sense of honor, take your best shot but you better pack a lunch and a flashlight.
You state that I shouldn’t expect you to change your argument to my way of thinking. That was never the intention of my response to you. Rather, I would hope that you would ask yourself the difficult questions that every American needs to be asking of themself regarding this egregious power grab by our President. As I said in my earlier post, this is not a partisan issue! This issue affects our very means of governance. The ONLY thing that has seperated our government from tin-pot dictatorships all over the world is our Constitution’s eloquently expressed checks and balances. Without checks and balances, we are no better than Cuba, China, North Korea or a myriad of other repressive regimes the world over.
You didn’t answer my first question but I’m going to ask another even though I don’t expect an answer.
If, as the President has stated numerous times, the only individuals the DoD is monitoring are American citizens with known ties to terrorism, why did they feel the need to ignore FISA (the law of the land) when FISCs have been nothing but a rubber stamp since their inception (9 of over 20,000 requests denied in 25 years)?
There is a point here that many have missed. President Bush and his administration are practicing the politics of fear…that is ALL that this is about. The administration keeping the population as afraid as possible because fearfull, docile people are easier to convince of anything you want them to believe. In reality, any American has a better chance of dying from a lightening strike than they do of dying in a terrorist attack. When does the “War on Lightening” begin? How many of your civil liberties are you willing to sacrifice to protect you and yours from the deadly scourge that is lightning? The point is this:
Is there terrorism in the world? Absolutely
Does terrorism pose a grave threat to our way of life? Only if we allow it to provoke us into
irrational behavior which goes against every principle our country was founded on.
Should we be vigilant and protect our people? Absolutely
Should we monitor the communications of people with known ties to terrorism? Absolutely
Should we do so within the bounds of the law? ABSOLUTELY!!!!
Should we allow the irrational fear of terrorism cause us to radically alter our way of life to something less than a democracy? Absolutely NOT!!!!
As I said, the intention of my post was not to somehow coerce you into thinking precisely what I believe. I had simply hoped that you were not a troll and could, perhaps, be engaged in a sensible debate about something that has potentially disastrous ramifications for ALL of our way of life.
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:04 amConstant. I am not certian if you and I are on the same side but I do agree with you. Let’s look for the truth. I wll admit that while I support these investigations I am not knowledgable of thier constiutional value. However I do believe what I have been told about such matters, being that they sound and rooted in law.
I would like to see those who are oppose to what the government is doing 1) admit they are making accusations ( if it proves to be less offensive we can say raising questions ) and 2) prove thier suspicions bare evidence before they demand we acknowledge it is fact and take action as though it is.
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:13 amLet’s cut to the chase – BOLD (!!??) Dems and progs need to take THEIR case to the American people. Tell the citizens (and VOTERS) WHY we should do away with the “terrorist surveillance program” as outlined by the President. Let the Dems explain that their leadership was given an outline for the program, and with the “exception” of Senator Jay Rockefeller, did not object to the interception of phone calls to and from suspected terrorists and people on American soil. I believe this is a debate interested and engaged Americans would follow – and would reiterate the dubious resolve of Dems. No surprise there!!
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:21 am#58 – Of course I’m making accusations because there has been NO proof presented. You’ll forgive me, though, if I don’t take the President at his word regarding something involving my freedom. That would be the case regardless of what political party he represents. You have attempted to make it sound like I am acting as judge, jury and executioner here. The reality is that the President admitted to the American people on national television that he was subverting FISA and that he thoroughly intended to continue to do so. From everything I know about FISA, this would appear to be prima facie evidence of, at the very least, impropriety if not outright illegality. We must have a complete, thorough and independant investigation of this matter! You sound as if I have advocated a particular course of action in my previous posts to you in stating that I am “demanding” you acknowledge my argument as fact and take some course of action. As you now know, I do advocate a plan of action for how to remedy this crisis: we need to have an independant investigation of this program. Simply changing the law (as Sen. Dewine has proposed) to make the actions of the President legal after the fact (regardless of whether or not we can determine if they were legal before the fact) is not only irresponsible but an affront to the oath of office that each elected official is required to take when they assume office. The only thing I am stating as absolute fact with my positions here is that I believe that the President broke the law and that we MUST ascertain whether or not we have been told the whole story here before we change the law of the land and, potentially, eradicate the protections of both the 4th amendment and FISA. I would submit to you that if you can not see the sense in that course of action, then it’s not my alleged hatred for the President you need to be worried about but rather, your blind devotion to the same.
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:35 amMighty Moron,
For someone that ‘claims’ to be an attorney, I’m surprised you’re too retarded and lame to discuss the ‘legality’ of spying on, and searching americans without warrants. I guess like any good Nazi, you just ignore the laws that are inconvenient don’t you?
As for the senators who were ’silent’ about the program, see moron, the whole senate wasn’t made aware of this little scenario – and the Reichwing Nazis running made sure everyone was to keep quiet.
Your ‘jewish’ relatives must be proud of your conversion to Christianity and your predisposition to Nazism.
And you still haven’t explained how you can fit 12 years of military service, 3 years of college, law school, 4 children (including 4 presidency), and years in private practice all into 15 years of elapsed time between your 19th year and your current 34th year of life. Yeah, you have LOTS of credibility – LIAR.
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:43 amI did answer your first question Green917. I said that I don’t know beyond doubt that the government is only listening to terrorist. However I believe them when they say they are not listening to domestic conversations. You do not. I also said that the Bush administration defends it program with a war powers act law that grants the authority to do exactly what they are doing without the FISA courts knowledge. I have previously read that law ( don’t have the name of it so I am not able to references it now ) I accept it, you do not.
I only noted that sacrafice is necessary to maintain freedom. Sometimes is will be our liberties that are sacraficed in the short term to maintain your freedom in the long term. If you have seen bloodshed and/ or combat you are well aware that your enemies could care less about grandeous posturing whether you are right or wrong. They will take anvatage of any open door of opprotunity to accomplish thier mission. And where as we are not fighting an established government or army in this war, some of the weapons of choice they are using against us are the tools and services we have made for ourselves. I to have served in this nations armed forces. However I missed combat as we were called to battle in the gulf 6 months after my term of service was over.
Finally I never tried to make your argument. I stated that this argument, as it has been presented in public, demands that I conceede to the point of view you hold and that is true. I did not hold you specifically responsible for that and I think I referenced that. However I may not have made that perfectly clear.
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:49 am“I did answer your first question Green917. I said that I don’t know beyond doubt that the government is only listening to terrorist. However I believe them when they say they are not listening to domestic conversations. You do not. William Sire”
Actually that’s not the point – the point is that the laws REQUIRE oversight so that at least 2 branches of government (actually all 3) KNOW. The law doesn’t require YOU to know, but it does require all of those branches to know.
” I also said that the Bush administration defends it program with a war powers act law that grants the authority to do exactly what they are doing without the FISA courts knowledge. I have previously read that law ( don’t have the name of it so I am not able to references it now ) I accept it, you do not. William Sire”
The FISA laws related only to ‘foreign agents’, the constitution applies otherwise. FISA nor Congress can circumvent the Constitution – PERIOD. The war powers act cannot contravene the constitution – which is what your retarded argument is claiming. It’s just patently idiotic – and it sounds like something that the resident ‘fake’ attorney Mighty AphroDUHMoron might argue.
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:19 am“I only noted that sacrafice is necessary to maintain freedom. Sometimes is will be our liberties that are sacraficed in the short term to maintain your freedom in the long term. William Safire – Benedict Arnold”
This moronic attitude was what we fought the English over – and by the way retard, WE were the terrorists in that war. And as a result we codified in the constitution that in fact the government CANNOT take our freedoms, even during war. It’s what distinguises us from a Saddam, a Nazi Germany, and a Soviet union. But ironically, you seem quite comfortable giving up your rights. Spoken like a true nazi! And our founding fathers had a great piece of advice for you and your fellow Reichwingers:
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:22 amBenjamin Franklin
I’m pretty sure that’s what a human kumquat would look like.
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:29 am#62 Wouldn’t you want to know beyond the shadow of a doubt that your government is not lying to you? Honestly, what would give you the idea that you can trust what they say? They claimed Iraq had WMD. There have not been any WMDs found nor any evidence found that they were there after 1995 and prior to the attack. They claimed that Sadaam was working with al qaeda. There has never been any evidence to support this and anyone who knows anything about Osama Bin Laden and al qaeda would laugh at the prospect of him agreeing to work with Sadaam (a SECULAR ruler whom OBL views as a traitor to the faith). They said they would cut the deficit in half by 2009 when both our trade deficit and national debt have done nothing but soar since they reached office. They claimed that Iraqi oil would pay for the reconstruction after the war. 250 BILLION of OUR dollars later, we aren’t any closer to rebuilding Iraq than when we started, in fact much less so. And on and on and on.
Why do they need to withhold the information on this program from the entire Intelligence and Judicial committees of Congress (the law says they must inform both ENTIRE committees) if what they have said is true? As you correctly surmised, I do NOT trust this administration because they have given the American people NO reason to trust them. We as Americans like to pride ourselves on the incredible system of government we have here. That government (Democracy) DEPENDS on accountability. Unfortunately, accountability is something that is wholly foreign to this administration. Where I come from, as an adult you take responsibility for your actions.
You stated “Sometimes is will be our liberties that are sacraficed in the short term to maintain your freedom in the long term.” In response to this ridiculous idea, I submit to you the immortal words of Benjamin Franklin:
“Those who would sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither.”
If our founding fathers had truly wanted to instill a unilaterally powerful “unitary executive” they would never have written the Declaration of Independance because they already had a king. As I said earlier, the ONLY thing that seperates us from tyrannical despotic regimes the world over are the rights granted to us in the Constitution and, in particular, the Bill of Rights. I would submit to you that if we start giving up our freedoms, the terrorists have already won.
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:39 amRyan,
Preach it brother! You obviously get it (as I’ve known about you for some time now)!
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:50 amWe need more objective journalists!!! Hmmmmm…..how about Helen Thomas – she certainly doesn’t have an agenda…
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:51 am“We need more objective journalists!!! Hmmmmm…..how about Helen Thomas – she certainly doesn’t have an agenda… Comment by mighty aphrodite ”
I agree with you, too many journalist are retarded ho’s for this administration – much like yourself.
Helen Thomas also beat Clinton to hell on numerous occasions – something a moron like you surely forget ‘conveniently’. Your ’smear’ of Helen is just as retarded and propagandist as everything you and your reichwing ‘immoralists’ produce. You’re a disgrace to humanity you lying moron!
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:02 amGreen917
On another thread, Mighty Moron had the Cajones to say that (s)he thought the Iraq was great because liberals can’t ’spend’ on entitlement programs. That’s right out of the PNAC NeoNazi agenda – and certainly explains what kind of extremist radical mighty moron is. Goebbels would be proud of her – just like that other 1/4 jew named Adolph. (s)he makes me wonder if (s)he wouldn’t round up the ’secular’ jews just like he did, and let the ‘reichwing’ jews escape as Hitler did Strauss (the founder of the NeoCons).
I’m always amazed at how someone like Strauss or Mighty Moron can be such a Nazi in light of what that far right movement was guilty of. I guess they’re insane – it’s the only thing that makes sense.
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:06 am#68 And she probably has more combat experience that the coke head in chief…..
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:15 amPresident Bush said Tuesday that U.S. troops will be in Iraq after his presidency ends in 2009. “I’m Positive It won’t be me that succeeds in Iraq,”…
So much for the re-elect the ‘War President’ [how PROUD of that name Bush] during an Election Year theory…
————————-
March 22nd, 2006 at 5:35 amBush says it would be Partisanhip to censure him, though Bush censures free Speech with ‘Free Speech Zones’
Can you Say HYpocrite?
http://black.vstore.ca wanne know whats going on see this cool website dream away or wake up, who the fuck are u little homos wanne have tea party with fox news. u can buy 3 years and u are on. a little sucking or cosy afternoon, u can buy , or maybe some biscets and a cofi annan(coffi)or jaap de hoop nato chief. (jepp they jump) norwegian writing jaap de hoop. vacla ha vel . wanne buy more come and see . mayhbe some movies (for an example stay alive its about a website who kill u if u understand meaning) or ghostship a ferryman story, or mad max 2 after atomwar, live cool life i will follow u will feel u get sader and sader or maybe a little sour jaap de hoop
love christer
March 22nd, 2006 at 7:56 amSomeone better make sure Carl Cameron isn’t a gay escort.
Comment by CheneyKilledNatalieHalloway #2
CKNH,
I don’t know about you all but…
…every time I watch a Fox Propagandist in an encounter with bushiva or L’il Dick…
…I detect this “sexual’ tension between them…
…Cameron was definitely “gellin”…
…his knees got weak…
March 22nd, 2006 at 9:26 amHas any court rendered an opinion on the legality or legality of the wire tapping program?
March 22nd, 2006 at 9:57 amThis admin don’t need no stinking courts; they despise the legal system. Don’t you get out much?
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:13 am#69 You are exactly right. Helen is a true journalist and no one escapes her tough questions. What does Aphro want, more gay prostitutes in the media?
So disconnected and so empty Aphro is. At least we have a poster child for zealots.
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:19 am#66 The trolls will never answer real questions; they just clip and pastes from each other all day. I just can’t figure out where they find all the time; I have much to do everyday. Oh well, must be nice to have leisurely days.
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:26 amNPR just had “constiutional scholar” Kmiec from Pepperdiine University Law School on discussing the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” and not addressing any of the consitutional or legal issues. Et tu NPR?
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:30 am#68 Ryan,
I have long thought that exact thing about mighty moron (nice moniker for her) in reading her screeds here. The other thing that her (and the other trolls of note here) brings to mind is:
“I wonder what the RNC pays these fools?”
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:40 amHas any court rendered an opinion on the legality or legality of the wire tapping program?
Comment by Tracy #77
Yeah,
The FISA court…
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:05 pm“I wonder what the RNC pays these fools?â€
Comment by green917 #82
green,
The TREASONOUS inbred Bushites (on these blogs) get to go around saying…
…”we won”…
…”Democrats have no plan”…
and ‘er let’s see ummm…
O’h yeah!
…”Democrats are losers”…
…while we’re ALL being bi*ch slapped, robbed, and bankrupted by their lords and masters…
…the criminal Bushite junta…
But they think they’ve got a bargain…
yep there are viruses out there with more intelligence than…
TREASONOUS inbred Bushites…
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:13 pmWho does Payson think he’s kidding? The NSA program is not surveillance on Americans. It is surveillance on terrorist communications. It is only domestic to the extent that those communications sometimes come to and from terrorist contacts within the U.S. That’s exactly the sort of enemy surveillance presidents are SUPPOSED to conduct during wartime. FDR did it. Lincoln did it, too. And they saved tens of thousands of lives by doing so. This program, like its predecessors, is constitutionally permissible as a “fundamental incident of war.” The enactment of FISA doesn’t change that, because the Constitution trumps any statute. And in this case the AUMF augments the Constitution. It’s as simple as that.
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:00 pm“Who does Payson think he’s kidding? The NSA program is not surveillance on Americans. It is surveillance on terrorist communications. It is only domestic to the extent that those communications sometimes come to and from terrorist contacts within the U.S. Blue State REd”
Maybe because you missed a few ‘key words’, the first being ’suspected’, as in if they WERE terrorists, we’d have arrested them. The second would be ‘warrant’, which is if they ARE suspected terrorists FISA would make it trivial to get warrants. The third would be that ‘oversight’ which is what all such programs require by the consitution, and through the courts.
This isn’t a hard concept, unless you’re as retarded as yourself.
The president broke the law – and REPUBLICANS ADMITTED IT, by saying they’d have to fix the law to make his actions legal.
Sorry, impeachment is the only reasonable course of action – breaking his oath to uphold the constitution, and warrantless SEARCHES of americans trumps blowjob as high crime.
“That’s exactly the sort of enemy surveillance presidents are SUPPOSED to conduct during wartime. FDR did it. Lincoln did it, too. Blue State Red”
1) We aren’t at WAR, that requires a formal declaration – it didn’t happen, and that IS part of the constitution.
2) I didn’t realize that FDR and Lincoln both did warrantless wiretapping – which phone system was that on for Lincoln?
“The enactment of FISA doesn’t change that, because the Constitution trumps any statute. And in this case the AUMF augments the Constitution. It’s as simple as that. Comment by Blue State Red”
Were you ALWAYS this retarded, or did you work at it. Only constitutional amendments ‘augment’ the constitution – laws like FISA and AUMF are BOTH TRUMPED
by the constitution.
You should be called BLUE STATE FOOL – because FOOL is the kindest description of you one could make.
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:12 pmYou should be called BLUE STATE FOOL – because FOOL is the kindest description of you one could make.
My, you really are quite emotional, aren’t you?
Let me know when you are ready for a rational discussion, instead of merely parroting the fever swamp talking points. We could begin by actually reading and discussing the relevant cases on presidential wartime powers.
PS: By the way, if it’s so clear that Bush broke the law, and that he committed an impeachable offense in doing so, how come no Democrat has called for the abolition of the NSA program; and how come the Senate Democrats are now busy turning back flips to avoid a vote on Feingold’s censure resolution? Your boy Russ sure looks lonley – and foolish – twisting in the wind all by himself. Come to think of it, so do you.
Have a nice day!
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:23 pmAre you kidding? I wrote a letter to one of my senators, Norm Coleman, suggesting that he should consider holding the President accountable for breaking the law. Sen. Coleman wrote back (or his staff did, what do I know?) and within the letter he stated his support for
“The NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program.”
Mind you, HE put the initial caps on it (I put on the quotes). So, even my senator has determined that this fictional program not only exists, has always existed and has its very own special name, and he’s spreading the lie to his constituents like we’re idiots.
I swear, I give up.
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:52 pmJABBS has had extensive coverage of the warrantless surveillance debate, including two recent articles on Senate Democrats’ efforts to use the censure measure as a launching pad for a full (not GOP) Senate investigation.
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:07 pm#83
Example of one of their opinions about the legality.
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:16 pm#86
“1) We aren’t at WAR, that requires a formal declaration – it didn’t happen, and that IS part of the constitution.”
Formal declaration against who?
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:18 pmWilliam Sire,
Thank you for your kind remarks. You said, “I am not certain if you and I are on the same side but I do agree with you.” Great — so we can agree that people who may not be on the same side can agree — it doesn’t matter what we disagree on; there is a way forward.
You also said, “Let’s look for the truth.” I commend you on your desire to rise above the issues; indeed it is prudent to find facts.
You also suggested that you perhaps had mixed views on the investigations — in that they would help lead to truth, but may have some uncertain constitutional value. You stated, “I will admit that while I support these investigations I am not knowledgeable of their constitutional value.” OK, so we have common ground: There is a reasonable basis to review the activity — to find facts. The way forward is to discuss the Constitutional value — or lack there of — of finding facts.
You also suggested that the programs and activities are well grounded. “However I do believe what I have been told about such matters, being that they sound and rooted in law.” You are correct: This is what has been said. And there are other arguments — based on not knowing the facts.
Rather, the other arguments are based on, “Given the FISA court was ignored, and they still engaged in the programs, we need to find out why this is done; and why the requirement was ignored.”
You also raise some interesting final points. Before I address it, I would like to share with you a small issue: This is the difference between [a] Executive power and [b] ministerial acts. Power is something that is used; ministerial acts are something that the Congress — by statute can require.
The issue before us on the FISA-NSA issue us: Is the FISA act a lawful ministerial duty; or is it unconstitutional? The way forward isn’t to simply assert that it is — but to ask the court to review the matter: If the FISA is unconstitutional, then there is no issue; if the FISA is a lawful ministerial requirement, then we need to explore the evidence: Whether the President did or did not do what was lawfully required.
At that point, we can see whether Congress has the power to ratify something that was apparently not done: Namely — assuming it is a ministerial act — whether the Congress can then say, “Despite that law, we shall not enforce that law.” That may be where we are.
Because going forward, the next issue becomes: Has Congress unconstitutionally asserted judicial power in ratifying a violation of a ministerial act; or has the FISA simply unlawfully trumped Executive power.
The way forward is to review the issues before the court. At this juncture, the troubling issue is — if this was a bonafide violation of FISA — in that it was a lawful ministerial requirement — Congress appears more willing to not look at the matter. Going back to your points above — the way forward is to ask: What are the facts; was a power unlawfully asserted; has Congress not done its job; and were rights violated.
Again, at this point the issue isn’t what did or didn’t happen — although that remains unclear; rather, the issue is despite this uncertain legal issue: “What is to be done to ensure that the branches of government are or are not lawfully asserting and exercising lawful power.” We do not know. What we do know is that it is Almost April 2006, almost 5 months after the disclosures in the NYT. That appears to be rather glacial. At this pace, we’re about half-way from Dec 2006 to the November 2006 elections. By all accounts, rather than find facts, we appear to be on a course to avoid facing legal issues and answering questions. If we are going to make informed decisions in November 2006, we need to know where this Federal Government stands. At this point, a reasonable person could conclude that there is no interested in facts; rather, they want to spend time facing “other issues.” That is not leadership, especially when there are lawful requirements to do otherwise.
Getting back to you final point, and in light of above, you raise some interesting issues related to burden of proof. You state, “I would like to see those who are oppose to what the government is doing 1) admit they are making accusations ( if it proves to be less offensive we can say raising questions ) and 2) prove their suspicions bare evidence before they demand we acknowledge it is fact and take action as though it is.” Your point is well taken — that we do not have information; that there are programs that are not disclosed.
However, there is an issue with burden of proof. The Government has not met its burden: The government has to prove that the programs were lawful; there are already civil cases against the NSA; and the court in DC has ordered the NSA to turn over the information related to the Cases [Electronic Freedom Foundation, ACLU, and others]. As to whether someone admits they are or are not making accusations is well taken: At this point, we can only do that — that is the basis for a complaint at the court; and the burden of proof rests with the plaintiffs to show that there was or was not something done.
Conversely, the entire burden of proof changes when we talk about a criminal matter, and the issue of Government oversight. If the Congress has the power to oversee the NSA — which it does — but refuses to consider the matter, or look into the details; then the issue isn’t simply whether or not the law was broken; but whether the US government is legitimate in asserting power, checking power, and ensuring that the rule of law prevails.
Again, we are getting to the half-way point between Dec 2005, and the November 2006 elections. Going forward, Congress has to decide whether it wants to be part of the fact finding solution, or whether it wants to be part of the problem. There are three options — all of them which mandate the Congress take action. First, the States can order the House to vote on impeachment with a rule 603; Second we can have a Constitutional Convention to change the laws and force Congress to do what it refuses to do — review the matter — and strip them of power they appear to not want to assert; or third, we can write a New Constitution. All three options are legal, and are consistent with the law.
The way forward is for the country to decide whether it wants to focus on facts; or whether it wants to focus on accusations. I would prefer that the nation move forward on the basis of facts. At this juncture, Congress does not show they are interested in facts. Rather, this Congress assents to what appears to be a stonewall. However, there are lawful options to force Congress to do what must be done: Break down that stonewall, find out, and bring to this to a conclusion.
As to your larger point — whether the country can or cannot stand the constitutional debate, and whether there is or is not a distractions with the fact finding — my view is that this is what is part of a civilized society. it’s not as though this is a distraction –rather, this is the purpose of government: To check power, assert power for one goal — to ensure our rights are protected, and that power is not abused. Perhaps the Executive and Congress know something and we should have confidence that power is appropriately being used, and there is no evidence. However, it appears as though there is a question with this — namely, if there was no problem, why do the legal arguments for and against this activity not simply get taken to the court for final adjudication? The answer appears to be that the White House and Congress want to keep this out of court — if that is the case, and then they are asking us to believe that they — not the judicial branch — can decide the legal matters. If that is what they want — to keep this out of court — then they appear to have asserted they in the Executive and Legislative branches may assert Judicial Power. That is not Constitutional.
In the end, unless this case appears before a court, we shall have no closure as to what is or is not lawful assertion of power. Rather, the way forward will be to do what is already started: State level discussions to force an impeachment using House rule 603; and drafting of a New Constitution to force Congress to do what it refuses to do: Assent to a judicial review of issues it refuses to investigate.
I look forward to your response. Either way, the issue is what will protect rights and prevent the abuse of power. I’m open to believing that there is no problem; at the same time, there is a deadline: 1 April 2006; after that date the public discussion on the New Constitution will accelerate and we will force this Federal Government to do what it refuses to do: Check power, find facts, and resolve issues.
Thank you for considering my remarks, and I look forward to reading your views on the information above, and the subsequent postings. Remember one thing: It’s simply about asserting lawful power to protect rights, and ensure we are free from the abuse of power. Thank you.
[Note: The linked, formatted, and better version of this letter is at the link under my name]
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:20 pmHas any court rendered an opinion on the legality or legality of the wire tapping program?
Not directly. You may want to read the decisions in Hamdi and In Re Sealed Cases. You may also want to read the analysis by liberal Prof. Cass Sunstein at http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2005/12/presidential_wi_1.html.
You will find that, far from being the clear-cut violation of law the Left calls it, there are plausible justifications for the NSA program grounded in the Constitution and the AUMF. According to these plausible rationales, the provisions of FISA are irrelevant to the President’s inherent warfighting powers as Commander in Chief. Russ Feingold is a smart man, so he presumably knows these arguments. He is ignoring them for political purposes, however. In other words, he is LYING to the American people.
Now how do you like your boy Russ?
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:27 pmBlue State Red,
Thank you for the link you have provided. You well stated the position in the AUMF and Hadmi case. With respect to the NSA issue, there is a slight nuance, which may be of interest.
You stated, “You will find that, far from being the clear-cut violation of law the Left calls it, there are plausible justifications for the NSA program grounded in the Constitution and the AUMF. According to these plausible rationales, the provisions of FISA are irrelevant to the President’s inherent warfighting powers as Commander in Chief”
Let’s begin with the AUMF-FISA-NSA nexus. The Hamdi case arose because of a detention in Guantanamo. The issue before the court was whether or not they could or could not appear before the court. The court stated in matters related to issues which are not specifically defined –as was not the case in the AUMF — that the generalized langue of the AUMF was the controlling authority. However, this did not mean that he lost the right to take the issue to court.
With respect to [a] the FISA-NSA issue and [b] the issue with respect to AUMF is where the debate lies: Some argue that the AUMF — in its generalized state — would be the controlling authority on the President’s use or non-use of power.
The other view, takes the view that the AUMF — which is generalized — is a different matter; and that the FISA act is a specific statement of what is or is not a ministerial act. Thus, this view holds that the Hamdi case is not relevant — in that unlike the AUMF-Hadmis situation which had no specific language in the AUMF what to do about prisoners — the FISA language was specific.
This is the heart of the debate:
A. Is the AUMF generalized, and does FISA trump the AUMF, and lawfully impose a ministerial duty; or
B. Is the use of power in war legal to include ignoring a statute, and this is lawful because the Statute unlawfully prohibits the exercise of lawful power. As you can see, both sides do not agree.
As to your points about the UofChicago lawyer and Hamdi case, you well direct us to their positions. “Has any court rendered an opinion on the legality or legality of the wire tapping program? Not directly. You may want to read the decisions in Hamdi and In Re Sealed Cases.
You are correct that no court has ruled whether the NSA activity is or is not legal; rather both sides are arguing outside court.
Which brings us back to the issue: How do we resolve this matter. There are two separate cases. The first is the Congressional-Executive power issue; and the second is the criminal case over whether or not there has been a violation of the law.
At this point, Congress is not interested in pursuing — what is arguably a lawful requirement under their oath — to find facts; rather, they do the opposite and defer to the Executive, leaving the legal question of power open. Those who believe this issue should be pursued would like to see: A resolution; a clear position as to what is or is not a lawful use of power; and a closure as to why a statute is or is not followed; and whether it is or is not lawful for Congress to ratify what some say is unlawful conduct.
On the other hand, there is another view that the resolution to this matter need not be concluded; and that the final solution is up to the public to bring to court. This is true: The public can and is pursuing this matter in court. However, the way to check power isn’t to rely on a civil case; rather, it is to ensure that the power is lawfully asserted.
The problem the nation has is that we are “relying on” a civil action — and the likely ruling on whether FISA is or is not constitutional — in order to trigger fact finding, evidence review, and rulings on case law; arguably, these should be things that Congress does, and lawfully asserts out of desire to check power, and honor their oath.
From the broad perspective, regardless the approach one takes, it appears as though in the end it is not going to be the Federal Government that solves this mess. Rather, it sill be people who choose to assert the law, compel fact finding, and get the courts to adjudicate. Whether the Congress and Executive do or do not wish to cooperate, stay involved, or be part of the process is momentarily going to be irrelevant. At this juncture, there is already a move afoot to compel Congress to vote on impeachment — forcing them to commit whether they do or do not want to investigate — and also draft a revision to the Constitution; in so doing, this will address the current problem we have: Failure of Congress to assert power, find facts, and resolve legal issues within the Judicial Branch of Government.
Having stated the above, let’s consider the issues raised in the comments.
1. Question: “Has any court rendered an opinion on the legality or legality of the wire tapping program?” You are correct: No.
2. “Response Not directly. You may want to read the decisions in Hamdi and In Re Sealed Cases. You may also want to read the analysis by liberal Prof. Cass Sunstein”. Indeed, the case has not been resolved.
3. “You will find that, far from being the clear-cut violation of law the” — indeed, we have not been given much assistance from Congress in finding facts; rather, the evidence before us — if we make adverse inferences — is that the facts and arguments do not suggest that there is a stable, solid, legal argument. The White House and DoJ appear to be adjusting their argument based on new information. This is a sign that they do not have a solid legal foundation for what appears to be a large program. We remain open to facts.
4. “there are plausible justifications for the NSA program grounded in the Constitution and the AUMF.” This is an argument which the court — as you noted in 1 — has not adjudicated. This remains a matter for the Executive to prove, not merely assert; conversely, it is up to the Congress and Courts to review this matter.
5. “According to these plausible rationales, the provisions of FISA are irrelevant to the President’s inherent warfighting powers as Commander in Chief.” Indeed, and the other view is that the President has no inherent power — rather, he only has powers that are explicitly delegated; The President was not granted the power to violate the law; nor was he granted the power to ignore a ministerial requirement. You are correct: The court has to adjudicate whether the FISA is a lawful ministerial requirement; or an unlawful constraint on Executive power.
6. “Russ Feingold is a smart man, so he presumably knows these arguments. He is ignoring them for political purposes, however. In other words, he is LYING to the American people. Now how do you like your boy Russ?” It remains to be understood. As you well noted in 1 above, the court has yet to adjudicate the matter; it would appear it is premature — in the absence of that adjudication — to assert that those who desire facts are lying; rather, a reasonable person could conclude the opposite: That in order to avoid fact finding, Congress has shifted the issue from whether Congress has or has not unlawfully asserted Judicial power — in validating what is arguably an unlawful act — or whether Congress has unlawfully assented to an abuse of power. A reasonable person at this juncture — given we are almost four months in to — what some could argue — is stonewalling — that Congress and President have jointly agreed not to review a matter that should be reviewed. It remains to be understood whether Congress and the President lawfully have their power revoked under a New Constitution. The work continues.
Note: This comment is contained in full, with additioanl links, and updates to the text at the link under my name.
March 22nd, 2006 at 3:01 pmNOTE: In May 2002 the New York Times – no right wing news organ, to be sure – reported that Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called “20th hijacker,” was not detected sooner because FBI officials refused to authorize a FISA warrant application for fear it would be denied.
Gee, I wonder if that same fear had anything to do with the structure and authorization of the NSA program?
Of course, this question does not matter to the President’s most committed enemies. All they care about is bashing Bush, without regard to whether they hurt the troops or help the terrorists. Every time someone calls or withdrawal, questions the President’s leadership or integreity in this war (and we ARE at war – else why the ANTI-WAR protests last weekend?), they give aid and comfort to our enemies. I’d be ashamed to act that way toward any president during wartime.
March 22nd, 2006 at 3:02 pmBlue State Red
You raised a point about the 9-11 events.
The evidence we have – as reported by Georgetown Professor Turley is that Moussaui essentially admitted to a long string of accusations that no reasonable fact finder could conclude. Namely, some believe the man is crazy and admitted to non-sense. Putting that aside, you raised a point about the link between NSA and 9-11:
1. 9-11 and NSA
You sated, “NOTE: In May 2002 the New York Times – no right wing news organ, to be sure – reported that Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called “20th hijacker,†was not detected sooner because FBI officials refused to authorize a FISA warrant application for fear it would be denied. Gee, I wonder if that same fear had anything to do with the structure and authorization of the NSA program?â€
Your point is understandable: There are questions related to what the NSA did or didn’t know prior to 9-11. If in fact, as many believe Moussaoui was involved, then it remains unclear why the NSA has not provide the intercepts of his cash transfers; and other communications.
2. Fact finding
As to your second point as to the motivation of those asking questions, “Of course, this question does not matter to the President’s most committed enemies. All they care about is bashing Bush, without regard to whether they hurt the troops or help the terrorists.†— You are correct there is a lot of hatred; and many do not like Bush, and like to Bash him.
The issue before is: What is going on; what are the requirements; and what do we do. If the issue with Iraq is – was there an unlawful invasion – then the issue isn’t whether the conduct does or doesn’t hurt anyone; rather, what claim can we make that we are a lawful republic if – as some may argue – we unlawfully use power, regardless the motivation, intent, or desire of that arguably unlawful use of force. One cannot claim they are protecting a way of life when they do not respect the laws of the land; nor when they mislead a nation to take on great debt.
3. Support
As to your third point on Iraq and allegations of treason, “Every time someone calls or withdrawal, questions the President’s leadership or integrity in this war (and we ARE at war – else why the ANTI-WAR protests last weekend?), they give aid and comfort to our enemies†– your point is well taken: Those who aid and comfort the enemies should be held to account. At this juncture, the question is: What is or is not being done; and who is or is not aiding whom.
There are several issues: One is what is prudent use of force – regardless how we got there; second, it is to ask whether we are part of the solution or problem; third, is the timing of the resolution; and fourth is whether the US really has any legal foundation to assert what should or should not happen in Iraq. Arguably, the US has no say in that Iraq now has its own government.
It is acceptable to question the leadership of those who appear to be poor leaders; it remains unclear why there can be no discussion of withdrawal; and whether we are using power lawfully or not is a separate issue from whether we have or have not declared war. Whether people agree or disagree with the action is irrelevant to whether or not the Iraqis are or are not going to assert their power.
4. Citizen relationship to leadership
As to your fourth point, “I’d be ashamed to act that way toward any president during wartime,†you are correct that it is curious how people interact with government officials. The issue going forward is whether this President commands respect; or should be lawfully removed from office for violating the law. If Congress is not willing to find out what is or is not going on, we need not given blind respect to that which compels us to assent to mysteries and non-answers. We can remain neutral.
Arguably, those who believe that the President is a war criminal and has violated the Constitution view their contempt for the man as justified; on the other hand, those who view the NSA program as a lawful assertion of power, and that the FISA is unconstitutional have great respect for a leader. The courts will adjudicate whether we have a criminal or a tyrant; and the Congress has chosen to – through inaction – to assent to what some assert is an unlawfully abuse of power with the NSA – and the other arguably illegal programs — and unlawful invasion of Iraq.
Whether Congress does or does not wish to assert its power remains an open question; however, Congress shall soon lose the power to intervene when its power is lawfully revoked with a New Constitution.
March 22nd, 2006 at 3:22 pmI’ll say this for you, Constant: You are thoughtful and reasonably consistent – even though I think you come to the wrong conclusion in the end. We don’t need a New Constitution, and we hardly need to worry that Congress will fail to stick its collective nose into places where it doesn’t belong.
The stark reality is that we are engaged in fighting a war that was declared on us by terrorist forces who are still trying to kill us. We have no choice but to win that war. The lives and freedom of literally millions of people all around the world depend on our success.
The President, as Commander in Chief, must be able to conduct military intelligence against our terrorist enemies without having a committee of 535 politicians looking over his shoulder. There will be time eough to sort out political turf battles after we win the war. In the meantime, not one administration critic has ever documented an actual case of an American citizen being abused under the NSA program. One would think that such documentation would be the minimum requirement for any effort to deprive our troops of this valuable intelligence tool, or to censure their Commander in Chief.
March 22nd, 2006 at 9:55 pmHello Blue State Red,
http://constantpated.blogspot.com/2006/03/nsa-there-is-some-common-ground.html
March 22nd, 2006 at 10:47 pmAll: A note about my comment in re #99 —
First, Thanks to ThinkProgress, and the opportunity to discuss these issues.
Second, thanks ThinkProgress for including the link. I didn’t want to have a link, and preferred to let you decide whether you wanted to hit the link or not — I posted the entire response her on this site so that no one could claim that I was “trolling for hits.”
The fine board managers have elected to include a link; so my best efforts to proive the material — so that you would not have to link to it — is out of my control. I tried to “not make you hit my link,” but the powers that be have decided that my full commetns to Blue Red state warranted a link.
- Constant -
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:44 pm