Bush's repetition of 9-11 fallacy to justify NSA warrantless spying program presents media with another opportunity to challenge the claim
SUMMARY: In his speech before the National Security Agency, President Bush repeated a debunked claim, previously reported uncritically by some in the media, that his warrantless domestic spying program could have identified some of the 9-11 hijackers. Bush's repetition of the claim gives the media another opportunity to examine it critically in their reporting.
During his January 25 speech at the headquarters of the National Security Agency (NSA), President Bush repeated the debunked claim -- previously articulated by Vice President Dick Cheney and Gen. Michael V. Hayden, a deputy director for national intelligence and former head of the NSA -- that had the Bush administration's warrantless domestic spying program been in place before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the NSA might have identified some of the hijackers in the United States. When several media outlets uncritically reported this claim -- as advanced by Hayden -- Media Matters for America noted that the 9-11 Commission and congressional investigators reportedly reached a very different conclusion: that the Bush administration had information on two of the 9-11 hijackers well over a year before the attacks occurred, and it was primarily bureaucratic problems -- rather than a lack of information -- that were responsible for the security breakdown.
According to a January 24 Washington Post article, Cheney and Hayden "did not mention that the NSA, CIA and FBI had significant information about two of the leading hijackers as early as January 2000 but failed to keep track of them or capitalize on the information, according to the Sept. 11 commission and others." The article went on to note that Hayden "also did not mention NSA intercepts warning of the attacks the day before, but not translated until Sept. 12, 2001." The Post reported January 5:
According to the Sept. 11 commission's report, released in 2004, the NSA first identified [Nawaf] Alhazmi and [Khalid] Almihdhar [two of the 9-11 hijackers] in December 1999, passing the information to the CIA but conducting no further research.
In 2000, the CIA failed to place Alhazmi and Almihdhar on a watch list despite their ties to a terrorist summit in Malaysia. The CIA also mishandled efforts to follow them after the summit and failed to share information about them with the FBI, including the crucial fact that both men had U.S. visas, the commission found.
By late August 2001, the FBI finally had information that Almihdhar had recently entered the United States. But the search for the suspected al Qaeda operative was treated as routine and assigned to a rookie agent, according to the commission report.
Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert who heads Rand Corp.'s Washington office, said it is unclear what communications could have been intercepted if the FBI and other agencies did not know where Alhazmi and Almihdhar were.
Hoffman also said Cheney's comments ignore the breadth of the government failures before the attacks, which were due to structural problems rather than a single missed lead.
"It's not that legislation was lacking; it was a systemic failure," he said.
Now that Bush has articulated the same debunked claim as Cheney and Hayden, will the media take the opportunity to examine it critically in their reporting?
From President Bush's January 25 speech:
BUSH: Here's what General Mike Hayden said -- he was the former director here at NSA. He's now the deputy director of the national intelligence -- deputy director of national intelligence -- and here's what he said earlier this week: "Had this program been in effect prior to 9-11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the 9-11 Al Qaeda operatives in the United States, and we would have identified them as such." The 9-11 Commission made clear, in this era of new dangers, we must be able to connect the dots before the terrorists strike so we can stop new attacks. And this NSA program is doing just that. General Hayden has confirmed that America has gained information from this program that would not otherwise have been available. This information has helped prevent attacks and save American lives.
I'm not really worried about the NSA spying on my international calls, I don't make any. But I do mind what parameters the administration uses to target Americans as "Credible Threats" We will never know those parameters. Seems they want to target Quakers in their church. Not alot being reported on Ft G Meade personnel being sent to Florida. Or targeting protesters outside of Halliburton handing out peanut butter sandwiches. (this brings back memories of Nixon targeting people that opposed his administration. Knowing that Yahoo, AOL and others gave the Justice Department data I will never again use those companies or purchase anything that they offer. It would be nice to see others boycott those privacy violators. Again various companies have givin the administration a trunk tap to intercept all our emails and anylize them. This is scary stuff. Has Hitler been reincarnated?
n 2002, the Bush Administration opposed an amendment to FISA that would have lowered the "probable cause" standard to "reasonable suspicion" on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. Let me quote here from Stephen Aftergood's Security News email:
The 2002 legislative proposed, S. 2659 introduced by Rep. Michael DeWine (R-OH), "raises both significant legal and practical issues [and] the Administration at this time is not prepared to support it," said James A. Baker of the Justice Department.
Among other concerns, Mr. Baker said, "If we err in our analysis and courts were ultimately to find a 'reasonable suspicion' standard unconstitutional, we could potentially put at risk ongoing investigations and prosecutions."
See Mr. Baker's prepared statement from the July 31, 2002 hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee here:
[link to www.fas.org]
The transcript and other prepared statements from that Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on "Proposals to Amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" are available here:
[link to www.fas.org]
In other words, three years ago, Bush actually said what he's doing now is unconstitutional. This is the height of hypocrisy combined with a grand sense of incompetence.
Bush said he needed to be able to wiretap American citizens without a warrant to fight the War on Terror.
Bush said he needed to retain the right to torture, in violation of both US and international law, to fight the War on Terror.
Bush said he doesn't just need the Patriot Act renewed; it needs to be EXPANDED so he can fight the War on Terror.
Bush said he needed stop-loss orders and other violations of the compact the US Government has made with members of our military to fight the War on Terror.
Bush said he needed to bypass standard bidding procedures for military contractors to fight the War on Terror.
Bush has been given almost everything he has asked for; everything else he has taken.
But Bin Laden is still alive.
At the very least - the VERY least - shouldn't Bush have something to show for all of the power he has seized? Trolls, wouldn't a COMPETENT president have caught Bin Laden by now, especially with all of these unconstitutional powers Bush now possesses?
Why do you - and the press - support such incompetence?
Bush has been doing his extra-legal warrantless domestic spying for years, so where are the results? Where are the terrorists caught before they can kill? The shoe bomber was on the plane with his bomb. The Beltway Sniper killed a bunch of people before he was caught. Where's the example that proves Bush has to have this extra power to protect the public?
So again we have an administration that thinks they could have done a better job of preventing 9-11, if they had just had...
'data-mined' words from 'warrantless wiretaps' of telephone conversations.
This, despite the fact that an FBI Informant (Abdussattar Shaikh) lived with two of the hijackers (Alhazmi and Almihdhar, in that FBI Informant's own home!), in addition to that FBI Informant having contact with yet another hijacker (Hani Hanjour).
I've heard of being "Too Dumb to see the Forest, because of all those Trees in the way", but now I have...
Too Dumb to see the Hijackers that are living with an FBI Informant, because we don't have 'data-mined' words from 'warrantless wiretaps' of telephone conversations
*
And again, the question to ask, is what exactly prevented the administration from going to the FISA court, or any other Judge for that matter, in order to wiretap the terrorists they knew to be in this country prior to 9-11?
They, the administration, may have saved 3,000 lives on 9-11 if they had just done their job, and wiretapped the terrorists they knew to be in this country...
...and done so, all within the bounds of the law, with a warrant.
What prevented them from doing that, and perhaps saving 3,000 lives on 9-11?
What prevented them then?
Before September 11, 2001, the Bush administration did not want to hear about Al Qaeda from the outgoing Clinton Administration. The Bush Administration would not listen to their own Head of Anti-Terrorism Richard Clarke. When told we were attacked by Al Qaeda, the administration was determined to try to blame it on Iraq, even though all indications were that it was done by Al Qaeda.The president himself was not that concerned with the PDB of August 6 titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the United States". No one in his cabinet was concerned about terrorism until after 9/11. The dots were all there. They chose to look for dots leading to Iraq instead.
Now he says if he were tapping phones we would have found them. What a load of crap!
Given that I disagree completely with the legal basis for warrantless eavesdropping, given that I feel that Bush is one of the most power hungry Presidents in history, I still cannot believe that he has the audacity to state that this program could have prevented 9-11. Of course it could have prevented 9-11, but so could the FBI with the information it had obtained legally, the CIA with the information that it had from foreign sources, the FAA could have stopped 9-11 decades before it happened if it had put box cutters on the banned materials list in the first place. This administration will use any opportunity to bring up the specter of 9-11 and by continuing to do so (next time will be when Barney piddles on the Oval Office rug, just watch) they cheapen the memory of those people who became heroes that Tuesday Morning, simply by being at work.
I still cannot believe that he has the audacity to state that this program could have prevented 9-11.
Wow, this is incredible. Now, MMFA says that it has been "debunked!!!" How do you "debunk" a possibility?? The operative word is "could" have, prevented. Surely, surely, no one can deny that it had that POSSIBILITY. Are you all THAT blind?? THAT partisan???
Bush's supporters are whining that IF ONLY they had had the ability to do warrantless searches BEFORE 9/11, they MIGHT have prevented the disaster.
Two major problems with that claim.
FIRST, the evidence shows that Bush was already approving these warrantless wiretaps PRIOR to 9/11. Having it be "legal" would have made no difference.
SECOND, the evidence shows Bush had PLENTY of evidence against potential terrorists AS IT WAS. He had this information, whatever the state of FISA LAW was, and he DID NOTHING ABOUT IT. Speculating that the LAW prevented him from getting MORE information, upon which to take NO ACTION, assumes a reversal of demonstrated apathy.
So, this EXCUSE of the Right is a trial balloon, to attempt to garner sympathy for Poor George Bush, prevented from being a good president by restrictive laws intended to protect the Constitution. A glance at reality shows that this is just another craven attempt to excuse the inexcusable, by (as usual) blaming anything and anyone except the man who has the responsibility. Bush is not a bad president because the Constitution has restricted him. He is a bad president because he is a bad president.
A glance at reality shows that this is just another craven attempt to excuse the inexcusable, by (as usual) blaming anything and anyone except the man who has the responsibility.
Do you have evidence that this program was going on prior to 9-11 or is this just another toothless argument pulled from the anal archives? My only point here is that for some of you to suggest that it wasn't even a "possibility" defies logic. Of course defying logic is a normal state for many of you.
What are the chances that tex doesnt know what he is talking about and just made this up? I put them at virtually nil, due to his long record of knowing EXACTLY what he is talking about. What are the chances you dont know what YOU are talking about? Again based on prior performance they are pretty high. This took me about five seconds to find on google. You DO know how to use a search engine, right?
[link to www.gwu.edu]
[link to www.dailykos.com]
Well, it turns out that like so many things that Bush says, you can't believe a f**king word of it. Truthout.org has today published a story, along with a link to documentary evidence, that shows George W. Bush, shortly after he entered office and long before the 9/11 attacks, authorised the spying in question. That's right- Bush didn't authorise warrantless monitoring and spying as a response to 9/11- he did it because he wanted to.
Please solon, your first example is from December 2000, BEFORE Bush took office. The second example is DAILYKOS!! Are you for real. I have proof otherwise on rushlimbaugh.com, which is more credible. My initial point and indeed the subject of this thread is whether it was a "possibility" and MMFA says that was "debunked." How do you debunk a possibility?? And listen, spare me, I'm really not too overly concerned with YOUR view on credibility. One must be credible to effectively judge credibility and you ain't!
TRANSITION 2001 so it is STILL a document FOR the Bush administration. Apparantly you have a hard time reading. The Transition document is the documentation FOR daily Kos's claim. Anyway you look at it. THIS is FOR Bush and it was BEFORE 9/11, tex was right as usual and you have a hard time getting information from written material as usual.
THIS is FOR Bush and it was BEFORE 9/11, tex was right as usual and you have a hard time getting information from written material as usual.
That's silly, this doesn't prove anything. The big tipoff is that it was BEFORE Bush took office. Where does it say in that document that Bush will be doing terrorist surveilance of the nature we're discussing. How did it know what Bush would be doing?? C'mon Solon, this is way, way below your typical low standards.
Written for HIM. Is there anything showing he stopped it? There is this:
[link to www.scoop.co.nz]
The National Security Agency advised President Bush in early 2001 that it had been eavesdropping on Americans during the course of its work monitoring suspected terrorists and foreigners believed to have ties to terrorist groups, according to a declassified document.
"The president personally and directly authorized new operations, like the NSA's domestic surveillance program, that almost certainly would never have been approved under normal circumstances and that raised serious legal or political questions," Risen wrote in the book. "Because of the fevered climate created throughout the government by the president and his senior advisers, Bush sent signals of what he wanted done, without explicit presidential orders" and "the most ambitious got the message."
It sure looks to me the machinery of domestic spying was in place long before 9/11. I have shown documents that prove this was an agenda GIVEN SPECIFICALLY TO BUSH before 9/11 if you can show it was never acted on despite the document SAYING IT WAS, then show it. Otherwise it pretty much shows exactly what tex said it does. Rant all you want this is an official government document written FOR Bush outlining exactly what he has been accused of.
The National Security Agency advised President Bush in early 2001 that it had been eavesdropping on Americans during the course of its work monitoring suspected terrorists and foreigners believed to have ties to terrorist groups, according to a declassified document.
So is it now your position that this was going on prior to Bush taking office, or during the Clinton administration? I mean you're supplying me with a Document dated December of 2000, BEFORE Bush took office and now you're telling me that the document is saying "it had been eavesdropping on Americans during the course of its work monitoring suspected terrorists and foreigners believed to have ties to terrorist groups," DURING CLINTON'S TERM.
If i remember correctly, during the first year of this administration, they were busy ( D Rumsfeld) trying to figure out which military bases to close and teach Mr Bush how to speak good english on Tv. I don't think we will ever find out what Pres Clinton told Mr Bush at the time and I believe Clinton has decided to let history find outrather than sensational statements. Bush listens to very few people and pres Clinton is not one of them.
It must be really tiresome to have to constantly debunk the same old lies, but thankfully MMFA is somehow there every day, calling them out over and over again. Thank you to David Brock and his associates.
The trolls we've come to know and love here have NOTHING to say about this.
Come on guys, you can do better! Justify these excesses!
Bush has seized all this power, yet OBL is still at large.
WHY?!?!
because these excesses and the failure of the administration in catching the "world's most wanted man" can not be excused. Remember Bush said a short while ago he seldom gave Osama a thought but now he sure is and he wants to make sure you are. It will make it easier for you to hand over your freedom that way.
because these excesses and the failure of the administration in catching the "world's most wanted man" can not be excused.
Maybe he just likes to keep him around so that every now and again, preferable just before elections, he can pop his out of his "love" cave that he shares with an overweight goat, to remind us again that we're at WAR and as such, Democrats can't be trusted with national security.
"Maybe he just likes to keep him around so that every now and again, preferable just before elections, he can pop his out of his "love" cave that he shares with an overweight goat, to remind us again that we're at WAR and as such, Democrats can't be trusted with national security."
What a remarkably stupid comment. Bush keeps Bin Laden around for political purposes, and Democrats can't be trusted with national security? When Bush lets the architect of 9/11 remain free as a political tool?
Of course you'll probably claim it was a joke. But if so, you can't excuse Bush's incompetence anyway.
What a remarkably stupid comment. Bush keeps Bin Laden around for political purposes, and Democrats can't be trusted with national security? When Bush lets the architect of 9/11 remain free as a political tool?
You really should lighten up!!
Like I said, you would claim it was a joke. But talking about how Bin Laden is still free and talking about how Dems are poor with national security at the same time is still remarkably stupid.
Like I said, you would claim it was a joke. But talking about how Bin Laden is still free and talking about how Dems are poor with national security at the same time is still remarkably stupid.
Both those statements are incredibly accurate and to an extent, verifiable. There is good evidence that Bin Laden is still alive based on the recent tape that appears to be authentic. Whether Dem's are poor on National defense is a subjective view, but there is ample evidence to prove they are poor. It seems to be the conclusive opinion of the American people, over and over and over again, that Dem's can't protect the US. I agree with the people.
And yet, Bush is the one that let 9/11 happen, then failed to catch the principal perpetrator for four years and counting. You can argue that Dems are weak on national security, but George "I'm not concerned about Osama" Bush has proven that he is. That's why it was stupid of you to bring that up.
You can argue that Dems are weak on national security, but George "I'm not concerned about Osama" Bush has proven that he is.
What he has "proven" to me or you is not really germane, but what he has proven to the American people is crucial, or more to the point, what Democrats have proven to the American people. Many on your side argue that Bush won re-election because of the war and I would probably agree. What does that say to you about the American people's apparent opinion of Democrat prosecution of War?
It tells me that people bought into the scare tactics that the administration had been pushing. The fact that a majority of Americans believed Saddam was involved in 9/11, even with no evidence, is an indicator of how misinformed the public is.
And besides, even with that, Bush had to rig the vote, so it does not stand as an overwhelming show of support for Bush's actions anyway.
[link to www.projectcensored.org]
that's really all you have, I know
It's ALL THAT MATTERS to have! With that, I "have" the keys to the White House. I "have" the keys to the SCOTUS. I "have" the keys to the state department and the justice department and ........................ Well, you get the drift. What else really matters??
Honor, integrity, responsibility, accountability, truth...I guess none of those things can hold a candle to power. It doesn't matter what means you use, as long as you win. Thanks for exposing your contempible attitude!
Anyway, you fail to address the point, that your only evidence of public opinion is highly flawed. So as you would say, I guess that's a wrap!
Of disengenuous dimness made sense? Your capacity for self delusion is astonishing. Are you sure you are not a left winger trying to make the rightwing look really, really dumb?
Bush said a short while ago he seldom gave Osama a thought but now he sure is and he wants to make sure you are
he wants to make sure you are
...well said.
The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary has, for 'bogeyman' [link to www.m-w.com]
bogeyman, a monstrous figure used in threatening children; a terrifying or dreaded person or thing; BUGBEAR
To protect the U.S. or get Osama?
The "excesses" as you call them are mainly to protect the U.S. in a war that will probably last 50 years.
Osama is among friends protecting the queen bee probably in and out of countries we are not likely to invade. If he died today, we will still have to be vigilant and I will still support Bush's proactive war on terror even if I have to give up datamining and warrantless searches as some giant sacrifice of my civil rights.
Oh, and I have a liberal friend who should join the board. So Thomasgroup if you are out there, sign up. And I know you have more money than George Soros, so you can donate to MMFA (although I am sure the Bush administration is monitoring and will have the IRS audit you).
"To protect the U.S. or get Osama?"
Don't you think that getting Osama, the architect of 9/11, is part of protecting the U.S.? Why is this a choice, in your mind?
The false dichotomy is sacred to rightwingnuts. It comprises most of their ludicrous attempts to justify Bushs otherwise absolutly catastrophic actions
We just don't want you think that once someone puts a little arsenic in Osama's dialysis that somehow magically all jihadists will convert to Amish.
What is the main goal?
To protect the U.S. or get Osama? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Where is there ANY evidence the two are mutually exclusive? THAT is what makes it a false dichotomy which is a logical fallacy. To me it certainly looks like they are part and parcel of the same goal. Why is getting benlaughinatbus not an intregal part of protecting the US when he is the one who has a) actually attacked the US as opposed to say, I dont know, IRAQ. and b) says directly he is going to do it again?
What I find rather scary and hilarious at the same time in all this is the hypocritical double-standard by these worms that "We the people" must be willing to allow these weasels to pry into our lives and for-go 220 years of fighting for freedom and civil liberties while they hold on to their secrets with what seems to me an 'Iron Fist'.....a term used not long ago for what Stalin did in Russia or Hitler did in Germany or what Kim Jung Il is doing now in North Korea!!
Exactly how are we able to spread freemdom and liberty to the world if we cant even protect our own freedom and liberty here?
Wasnt it Ben Franklin that said “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
Heres another good quote “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”
What would you expect? All the (Bu)sheeple have nothing to say about these questions because anything they could possibly say would either be an outright lie or simply a regurgitation of the Bush(Rove) talking points. Remember, we are 'mired' in the reality world while they are adrift in the world of non-reality they choose to exist in!
Let's face it: ANY manager can "solve" ANY problem, once and for all, if they don't have to follow the law.
A manager at MegaWalMart has a problem employee, claiming discrimination, making a lot of noise. You are responsible, and your bosses are putting enormous pressure on you to SILENCE her, and get your employees under control.
You take swift action. You have her tied to a post in the employee's lounge, and employ a sadist to whip her, as all other employees look on, to serve as a "lesson". Then, you take her to a secluded spot in the woods and hang her from the highest tree.
Problem SOLVED. No problem, as long as you don't have to follow the LAW. When bully tactics and lawlessness take the fore, there is really NO problem that cannot be more easily solved.
And Bush says, "This would be a lot easier this was a dictatorship. heh heh. As long as I was the dictator!"
[P.S. Isn't it a hoot that Bush complains that he can't do his job if he's made to follow the law, and yet Bush had not been following the law WELL BEFORE 9/11?]
P.S. Isn't it a hoot that Bush complains that he can't do his job if he's made to follow the law, and yet Bush had not been following the law WELL BEFORE 9/11?]
Please link me to all the confirmations in a court of law of "lawbreaking" by Bush! Or is this from, as someone else put it, the anal archives?
No, Tex said "follow the law". Bush did not follow FISA, which is the law. "Lawbreaking" is only arguable based on the Administration's defense that they have the right to ignore the law, but the fact that they did not "follow the law" is beyond any dispute.
No, Tex said "follow the law". Bush did not follow FISA, which is the law. "Lawbreaking" is only arguable based on the Administration's defense that they have the right to ignore the law, but the fact that they did not "follow the law" is beyond any dispute.
There are many, many laws. There is the constitution, there is the congressional mandate to use "all force necessary" to combat the terrorists. There is article II of the constitution. There are many, many laws. It hasn't even been determined, in a meaningful way, that the FISA laws were no complied with.
"There are many, many laws. There is the constitution, there is the congressional mandate to use "all force necessary" to combat the terrorists. There is article II of the constitution. There are many, many laws. It hasn't even been determined, in a meaningful way, that the FISA laws were no complied with"
No, FISA dictates that it is the only means to conduct electronic surveillance, and that's clearly what was being referred to. And since FISA requires warrants, and the entire issue is that Bush ordered surveillance without warrants, then obviously FISA laws were not complied with. For you to suggest otherwise betrays either gross dishonesty or ignorance.
And again, the "necessary" part of AUMF does not help, because Bush had every means available to do what he needed to do (according to his own description) through FISA. Since he had those legal means available, it cannot be argued that it is "necessary" to do otherwise.
No, FISA dictates that it is the only means to conduct electronic surveillance, and that's clearly what was being referred to.
Possibly, but it's really moot, because Congress also mandates "all necessary force." What does "ALL necessary force" mean to you?? Do you realize that there are NO exclusions to the word ALL?
"What does "ALL necessary force" mean to you?? Do you realize that there are NO exclusions to the word ALL?"
It means that it's a set that contains all measures that are necessary. The warrantless wiretapping is not necessary, because Bush could have used FISA, therefore it cannot be included in that set. Wiretapping, yes, without warrants, no.
The warrantless wiretapping is not necessary
The "authorization" said "all" force the President deems necessary. It said nothing about consulting with brabantio on what was and what wasn't necessary if I read it right. So, since it gave the President the discretion to use "all necessary force" and it gave him the additional discretion to solely determine what WAS necessary, it was legal! I think that's a wrap isn't it???
"The "authorization" said "all" force the President deems necessary."
But if it solely rests on his judgment, without any oversight at all, then what's to stop him from assassinating Senators in public? If what you say holds water, then he can do whatever he wants at any time, and there is no way of questioning him, because he can simply say he "deemed it necessary". That is clearly not consistent with the Constitution. We have a system of checks and balances, and the AUMF does not scrap that concept.
But if Bush really thinks it's "necessary" to violate a law when his own words show that he could have just used FISA, then he is a bigger moron than I had believed. If he's telling the truth about the program, then his judgment on the matter is difficult to explain!
But if it solely rests on his judgment, without any oversight at all, then what's to stop him from assassinating Senators in public?
If a President assassinated a Senator in public, it would depend on the Senator, of course, but in most of those instances it would be clearly, clearly outside the "need" or as Justice Alito would say, "a reasonable person could not have concluded that murder as a "need"" as it relates to the war. The analogy is accurate, but the issue of whether "a reasonable person could have concluded that there was a need," with respect to the terrorist surveilance program, is quite different. I would wager that an overwhelming majority of reasonable people would acknowledge that a reasonable person could see that as included in "all necessary force" even if they personally disagreed with the activity. If the Democrats want to pursue this matter, which I'm sure they probably will at the behest of the ACLU and PFAW and similar groups, untimately it will fall to the SCOTUS to determine how a "reasonable" person would have read that directive. It might not even come to that thinking if the court considers the power itself to be constitutionally inherent to the Executive. In any case, the Republicans will be beating the Democrats severly about the proverbial head and shoulders with this issue all the way into the mid terms. I say, go for it!!! It's almost like a gift from God! In fact, I wouldn't be too terribly surprised if Rove leaked it just for that purpose. We may disagree on everything else, but I think even you are realistic enough to understand that the issue does not favor the Democrats because of the public's already low opinion of Democrats in matters of national security. But like Icarus I'm afraid, the temptation will be overwhelming.
"The analogy is accurate, but the issue of whether "a reasonable person could have concluded that there was a need," with respect to the terrorist surveilance program, is quite different. I would wager that an overwhelming majority of reasonable people would acknowledge that a reasonable person could see that as included in "all necessary force" even if they personally disagreed with the activity."
But there is no structure for "a reasonable person's conclusion" in your scenario. Because Bush said it, it's "necessary", without any oversight or outside influence at all. And since you don't believe in polls, how would you ever know what the people believed? Currently 52% believe that Bush should be impeached if he eavesdropped without court approval, so that is an indication that reasonable people aren't very happy with Bush on this one (unless the country is leaning much further left than any right-winger has admitted before)
You claim that it's reasonable to believe it's necessary, yet you couldn't explain how. You just passed it off to Bush's judgment, as that was the only relevant factor in your argument. Now, reason somehow factors in, yet you have to explain how it can be declared "necessary" by any reasonable person. What is the rationale there? Do you really believe that if people are asked "Was it necessary for Bush to authorize warrantless wiretaps when FISA would have allowed him to do everything he wanted to do?" that people would say yes?
And the issue is not how either side will play this. This is your usual tactic, confusing the results with the merits of the argument, as if they are always consistent with each other.
LODI quotes Congress' authorization for invading Iraq, saying, "What does "ALL necessary force" mean to you?? Do you realize that there are NO exclusions to the word ALL?"
RESPONSE: The President can authorize the execution of all Moslems currently in the USA. Oh, if HE ALONE determines this is "necessary". No exclusions to "ALL", this is the Rightwing's argument for the "unitary exectutive"/dictator.
Happily, this may be the insane overreach that is necessary to impeach and remove this president.
"ALL NECESSARY" cannot include violating the LAW or the Constitution. Why? Because Congress (as well as the president) are SWORN to uphold the LAW. It does not have to be separately stated that "ALL NECESSARY" actions must follow the law ... that is already the overarching requirement. To claim "ALL NECESSARY" includes VIOLATING the law is not just weak and lame ... it's a no-starter.
If this is the president's "defense", he is DOOMED. Hallelujah!!!
All necessasary force to protect my family would not include shooting my nieghbor because I THOUGHT he might be trouble, as that is NOT following the law on self defence. All STILL means you follow the law. Also the administration TRIED to get congress to include domestic language in the bill and congress balked. Its hard to claim NOW that he had the right to do what Congress specifically withheld IN the bill. WEAK
[link to www.scoop.co.nz]
Scooping up AMERICANS on these wide searches? No problem, says Bush. We won't be seeking a warrant, so who's to know? Oh, and keep a LIST of those Americans. But remember, TOP SECRET, hush, hush. No squealing to Congress or the American People. We must defend America from lawless unscrupulous enemies of America. Don't tell the people that this describes US AS WELL.
This is interesting, that Bush claims he must spy on us to find terrorists! And Bush saided that the calls are only international! Bush also claims that this is stategy to fight the war on terrorism! At what length will the Bush reigm and then future governments go to spy or claim to have the presiental power? Will the president have the power like Big Brother in 1984? If we jeopordize our civil liberties for security in time we will have neither of the two. Also adding to my comment about the calls being international, this seems to be an ongoing propaganda campaign. I can't really comment on it but, I can say this just look at the Quaker's and their activities on "anti-war protesting". This will give you the answer that Bush is lying, the NSA taps all of the calls in the country. Commenting on George Orwell "1984" , Mr. Orwell was just off by twenty years not to bad for a guy the living in the time before WWII. Never the less Americans and for that matter the World is living in ORWELLIAN TIMES......
I would like to point out the obvious flaw in Bush's logic that illegal domestic spying could have prevented 911: HE DID NOTHING ABOUT TERRORISM BEFORE 911.
Even if illegal wiretaps were being done, his apathy toward the terrorist threat at the time guaranteed that 911 wouldn't be prevented.
Same old stuff. I don't think he answered a single question, and managed to sound stupid and snotty at the same time. No amount of logic will sway this man. He insists his "program" (What program?) is legal and "the Amerkin people" should trust him to do the right thing, because he's "serious about this thing, this whar on tare".
My question: How long will it take to undo the ill will fostered by this regime? (Not to mention al the other stuff that has gone so blazingly wrong . . . )
The news conference was this morning, Jan 26th. Sorry.
A good friend and respected lawyer who has a long history of service to the government as well as advanced degrees in law and a notable status in private practice sent this about the wiretapping issue. My response to him, disagreeing, follows.
"... Essentially the point made by the Administration and/or supporters was that the mechanics/science/engineering of the interceptions was so complex and/or frequent that traditional/even nontraditional warrant/review procedures were not adequate - so, especially since the impact on any expectation of privacy as to anyone who had standing to object was so minor anyway, 4th amendment analysis of the transgression was not appropriate. A particularly interesting aspect of the issue was that many of the transgressions involve NSA & others using computers to scan literally millions of communications with focus occurring only pursuant to complex programs that recognize patterns, certain word combinations, etc. I have not taken the time to evaluate this - however, I think I recall some rationale of this same type found in U.S. Supreme Court opinions that generally accept reduced 4th Amendment protections in the area of government searches in schools, non-police government entities, etc. where probable cause has been dispensed with and mere suspicion chosen as a standard. The decision authority is some government supervisor. A common thread of many of the seminal cases on the issue is that the sheer number and frequency of such evaluations eliminates the rationality of standard 4th Amendment formality and analysis."
My view:
That degree of government intrusion is what rattles me the most, especially in the midst of an administration and legislature and freshly packed judiciary that has begun to harp on the theme of the "unitary executive," which in Orwell's Animal Farm terms would be newspeak for “dictator.”
When the government is centralizing power within the executive branch in a frightening degree of acceleration, defending itself by denial and misinformation, and has access to every secret in everyone's life that has been communicated over the internet or to one's psychologist or doctor in electronic files, it has the information to quash dissent and limit freedom. We are nowhere near that point yet. But, just look at what has happened in the last ten years in terms of corporate information sharing that has already centralized data and exploited it. This was even before the government decided in 2001 to mine everything that has been or will be accumulated by industry as well as by NSA.
Most of us have information we don't want anyone else to know about ... medical treatment, who we know, what we have said in confidence (just yesterday, my associate learned to her outrage that she was illegally recorded by her client’s husband as she told her female client about what might happen if the judge "gets his panties in a wad!). Sometimes the release of that information can shape careers, be the basis for blackmail, or block security clearances ... too many unintended consequences to list.
Yes, we have options in terms of "expectation of privacy," such as not using the internet and not using credit cards and not having a bank account and not having a telephone number ... all sources of varying degrees of information to someone wanting to exploit it. Doesn't that make the terrorists the winners?
The administration’s public defense is that it is limiting intercepts to those between people where one of them has a suspected terrorist connection. Then, FISA should be sufficient. Get your data and within the next three days get the FISA rubber stamp.
But if as you say millions of interceptions are being conducted, making it operationally impossible to get review within 72 hours, that is what our laws are supposed to prevent, what Congress is not yet ready to authorize. That no one individual has sufficient harm to have legal standing to file a civil rights lawsuit for an injury is precisely why a broad law prohibiting the conduct is necessary.
Nixon mined for data to use it to centralize his power and stay in office. What makes us think George Bush and his Nixon-Reagan revivalist crowd of unitary government-touting advisers, cabinet members and talk show hosts are going to choose a different path if they remain unchecked in their pursuit of plenary power to intercept the communications of everyone who dissents from such a goal?
The time to stop this is now, before the injury to any is sufficient to give standing to individuals to sue.
"Stopping it" is not likely to happen. First, as the FISA Court of Review concluded after looking at case law, is that the president likely has inherent powers for warrantless searches involving communications coming in and out of the U.S.
So any law you propose will likely have constitutional ramifications. Given with the technology the NSA probably has available, which I can only assume can sort through millions of communications per day, and must somehow narrow this down to likely suspects, it seems a system to handle millions of warrants per day is unworkable.
The president/nsa needs speed and agility to pursue terrorist suspects.
So, when Congress meets shortly to go over all angles, and given Bush likely is constitutionally correct, today's technologies, and the desires of congress to expand FISA, what is the solution?
I know you won't like the likelihood that Bush will be found to be constitutionally correct, but I doubt the Supreme Court will rule any time soon and we know case law is in his favor, so what is the solution?
As for the "court of appeals" nonsense...
[link to thinkprogress.org]
"Given with the technology the NSA probably has available, which I can only assume can sort through millions of communications per day, and must somehow narrow this down to likely suspects, it seems a system to handle millions of warrants per day is unworkable."
Wrong! Hayden himself said that the eavesdropping was directed and focused. It is not some high-tech word search. So there is no reason that FISA and it's 72-hour window was not expedient enough.
So you know all about how the NSA datamines all communications.
So tell me, exactly what do you know and when did you know it?
Do they use satellites? If all the major communications networks are cooperating, how many communications are we monitoring a day?
The targeted and focused eavesdropping is handling millions of calls a day? And that would require millions of warrants every day? Are you listening to yourself?
the thinkprogress article is silly.
The court clearly stated it's opinion and that's all the court of review did was look at past cases and state it's opinion the president has inherent power. That included cases before and after the FISA law was written.
It's not silly at all, you are talking about a quote from before FISA to claim presidential power after FISA passed. You really can't win here. The only thing you can argue is that this makes FISA unconstitutional, and that still doesn't excuse Bush's actions - he is not making that argument (and don't you think he would if any of his army of lawyers said it was?), and he should have dealt with it through the system even if it was.
"we know case law is in his favor"
No we don't. There is no case where the President has been allowed to violate Congressional law, even during wartime, as far as I know. If you know of one, please say so. Any "inherent" or "implied" powers he may have to not trump stated law, period.
Any "inherent" or "implied" powers he may have to not trump stated law, period.
If those "inherent" or "implied" powers come from the constitution, the Congress can pass 10,000 laws contrary and it wouldn't matter. Congressional action DOES NOT trump constitutional law. A common example is the Executive's power to pardon. Congress could pass a law tomorrow taking that power away and it wouldn't matter squat, it would be meaningless. Get a clue!!
"A common example is the Executive's power to pardon."
A commonly stupid example. The power to pardon is clearly stated. The power to overrule congressional law is not. If there is some exclusive unstated power through the constitution to eavesdrop, then FISA is unconstitutional. If that's the case, then Bush should say so, and he should have tried to fix that situation with the power structure he has available to him.
And if FISA is constitutional, then there must not be any "inherent" power there, and then article II is irrelevant to the matter.
Since it could justify ANYTHING at ANYTIME. Lets look at this hypothetical press conference.
Press: Mr Bush we have reports you are driving into poor neighborhoods and dragging seniors out into the street and shooting them in the head.
President Gump: Yes thats right. I have inherent powers to promote the general welfare and that means protecting social security. Any murder laws that infringe on my inherent right to protect SS as I see fit is unconstitutional.
Press: Pres Gump. We have heard reports you are sending troops into San Fransisco and rounding up liberals
President Gump: Thats right, I have powers inherent in the constitution to protect Americans from terrists. Since liberals oppose my operation Halliburton parking lot, they are possible threats to our country. The congress can make no laws that inhibit what I have decided are my inherent right to do whatever I think I want to do to protect Merika
Press: We have further reports that you firebombed the NYTimes.
President Gump: Thats right, its an unamerican newspaper as it told the truth, that is it disclosed my assault on the fourth amendment. It is in league with the terrists. I have an inherent right to decide WHAT Merikans hear and know, its in that constitution thingy somewhere copies of which are being rounded up as I inherently have decided that it will say what I want it to say and no one else should have a copy to say different, when there is any questioning of my inherent God-King powers the terrists win.
The power to pardon is clearly stated. The power to overrule congressional law is not.
Clearly stated and implied as a matter of Judicial ruling carry the very same weight. For instance, the "right to privacy" is nowhere in the constitution, yet it is upon that "right" that abortion is considered a constutional right. Once the court ruled that there was an "implied" right to privacy, that became just as forceful as a stated right. Really, you should go study and come back later. You're woefully misinformed!
The right to privacy is implied for people through the Consitution, it has been ruled. So? How is it implied that Bush can overrule law? When has that precedent been handed down, exactly?
How is it implied that Bush can overrule law? When has that precedent been handed down, exactly?
That's what this whole issue is about. Since this specific activity hasn't been in existence long, technologically, this specific issue has not been ruled on by the SCOTUS so the "legality" is in question. NO ONE KNOWS for sure!!! Until the SCOTUS rules on this specific case, NO ONE KNOWS whether its legal or not. Everyone might have an opinion, but NO ONE KNOWS. There have been past rulings regarding unique actions during war that are contrary to law. One dealt with the Japanese internment. Another has to do with the attempt to seize the Steel mills, there was Lincolns problems about holding prisoners that are all "specific" rulings about issues that aren't clearly articulated in the Constitution. There is the Hamdi case, there is the Padilla case, Gitmo and on and on. None of these specific items appears in the Contitution so the mere fact that the SCOTUS even entertains arguments is a clear sign that there are "inherent" rights to the executive. By "hearing" arguments they are clearly recognizing that there are inherent, inarticulated powers, its just a matter of how far they go. That is and has been my whole point with you from the beginning. Clearly, in the case of the Japanese, the SCOTUS saw a situation that they thought was reasonable AT THAT TIME. That decision has been looked back on with a certain amount of regret, but they were in that time, not you and I. I doubt that anything similar would happen today.
In all your twisting, you've admitted that Bush did in fact overrule law. That's progress, considering earlier today you were claiming that there was no evidence FISA was violated at all. I've never claimed that the issue was closed, as you seem to believe. My conflict with you is that you just say "we don't know, we don't know" and therefore nobody can say Bush violated FISA or that the justification is on shaky ground or anything.
As for your examples, since you admit that the internment issue is viewed with regret, that's hardly a point in your favor. In the steel mill case, the SCOTUS ruled against Truman on that one, and declared he could not violate congressional law even during wartime. For Padilla, Bush may be able to declare people "enemy combatants" but he cannot deny them their day in court, which was the issue all along. That case shows that while we may allow Bush some extra leeway, we do not sacrifice citizen's rights for that. If that standard is applied here, since it can't be demonstrated that there is some special need (like with border or airport searches, and other exceptions of that nature), that the fourth amendment requirement of warrants based on a judge's ruling of probably cause should be upheld.
if the Congress goes democratic and they pass a law that says a president cannot hold any American as an enemy combatant, does a president have to honor that law?
No, he can argue against that bill in front of the SCOTUS, if he so chooses.
"In all your twisting, you've admitted that Bush did in fact overrule law.
I haven't "admitted" anything because I don't know enough about what specifically Bush did, niether do you, neither does MMFA, or the AP, or ABC and on and on. That's my entire point here, is that no one can determine anything of a legal nature definitavely because no one has the facts in their entirety. I am talking in hypotheticals because that's all any reasonable person will admit is available from an informational standpoint. We simply don't know enough to make any credible assumptions one way or the other. Is that so difficult to understand? Don't you guys EVER learn. You made wild unsubstantiated declarations of guilt as it relates to the Plame thing, no sale. You made wild unsubstantiated claims about the downing street thing, again, no sale. You make will unsubstantiated claims about Bush authorizing torture at Gitmo, again NO SALE. You guys do it over and over again and when you fail on one, you latch on to another. It's frankly silly!
I said whether Bush has the "right" to violate law or not hasn't been determined. Isn't that fair? Now you are denying that he violated law. Which one of these things do you deny as public knowledge?
1)FISA requires warrants
2))Bush authorized unwarranted wiretaps
3)FISA is a law
So when you say that "There have been past rulings regarding unique actions during war that are contrary to law", you're not actually admitting that Bush's actions were "contrary to law". Right!
And also, when I talked about how Bush could assassinate Sentators if he deemed it necessary, you said "The analogy is accurate...". If you don't think FISA was violated, how would the analogy be accurate at all, since my example is a clear violation of law?
So when you say that "There have been past rulings regarding unique actions during war that are contrary to law", you're not actually admitting that Bush's actions were "contrary to law". Right!
You're much too intellectually challenged to have a serious dialog about this complex subject. What does "past ruling regarding unique actions during war" have to do with admitting that Bush's actions were contrary to law? Do you even have a clue what a hypothetical is? Are you even capable of understanding and carrying on a dialog based on certain hypothetical assumptions? No wonder your side keeps getting their fannies handed to them in issue after issue after issue by this President and election after election after election by Republicans. I mean if you're the "poster boy" for liberal thought, no wonder you folks can't garner the support necessary to even support a filibuster. You continue to try to cloud this and other issues and you feel that by doing so, you've somehow won. Look around Brabantio, how many Democrats are in the Senate? How many in the House?? How's the SCOTUS looking to you? When's the last time you won a Presidential election. Fact is, your side has NOTHING. Yet you continue on with the same hen house nonsense present in virtually every one of your posts. I say, keep on keepin on my confused friend!!
So your point is that even if there was an actual law that was violated, that Bush can do that because we're in a war. But you're not admitting that any law was violated, even though you said that the "murdering senators" analogy was accurate. Hmmm. Were you not aware that murder was against the law? I'm intellectually challenged, but you thought that was an accurate analogy when you think that FISA was somehow followed? I just don't understand how if you thought FISA was not violated why you wouldn't just say "but murder is illegal...".
If you want to back that up, please tell me what you are questioning. Do you think FISA doesn't require warrants? Do you think Bush didn't authorize warrantless wiretaps? Or do you believe FISA is not actually a law? If you aren't questioning any of those three things, then you can't very well deny that Bush violated the law, whether he has the "power" to do that or not.
I'm intellectually challenged, but you thought that was an accurate analogy when you think that FISA was somehow followed?
While I realize this is much too complex an issue for you to understand, in the interest of equal access to all, regardless of ability, I will do my best to explain what amounts to quantum physics to a first grader.
Your analogy was accurate in that if the President ordered a Senator "shot in the streets" I think was your phrase, he would clearly have to explain that action IF he contended it was to advance the "war effort." On its face, it would appear that there would be little justification for that action. If it turned out later that the Senator had a vial of botulism on him and documents indicating that it was his intent in conjunction with Al Quieueyda to realease it in downtown NY city, that might tend to justify the President's actions. If indeed the facts were to sustain that the Senator clearly had ties to Al Quieyiuyeyda and had the botulism on him, would anyone really support charging the President with Murder? You might and Tex might and Solon might, at least THIS President anyway, but very few regular Americans would. It would be arguable that while murder is clearly illegal, killing an "enemy" in combat with the US, as this Senator clearly would have been in that scenario isn't illegal at all.
Now here's the part that's gonna require you to actually think just a little bit. That chain of events is precisely the same as your scenario with the Senator as is the case with this NSA thing. There is reason to believe that the President might have broken a law, but then there is the directive to use "all necessary force" to fight the terrorists. EXACTLY as in the case with the Senator, you have one law, murder, that prohibits the act, another law, the authorization to use force that allows it, or so it would seem plausible.
I really don't expect you to understand all this, it's much to complex for you. I just wanted to do due diligence so as not to be accused of not supporting my arguments. Maybe someone else out there of your ideology will actually understand this and have a cogent retort.
Then the action is illegal, until it is justified, which has been my argument all along! If you claim that your scenario is exactly like the NSA one, then you can't very well say "we don't know, we don't know" all the time. The president shot a senator. That's illegal. The president violated FISA. That's illegal. In both cases, he needs to justify it for it to be considered legal, and while you are claiming that it could, under enough certain conditions, be justified, you were previously arguing that it didn't need to be justified.
Lodi:"So, since it gave the President the discretion to use "all necessary force" and it gave him the additional discretion to solely determine what WAS necessary, it was legal!"
"Solely determine what was necessary" - that was your argument, that because of that power, that Bush could violate FISA. Now, when the issue of shooting a Senator is brought up, suddenly it's about what "reasonable" people would think about it (no legality mentioned). But by your own words, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks about it, because it's at the sole discretion of Bush. He wouldn't have to prove anything about botulism or al queda (no matter how creatively you spell it) or anything else, as long as he claimed it was necessary for the war effort.
Where you seem to get twisted around in your mind is the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Because there has been no ruling on anything, you seem to think that he "followed the law", until proven otherwise. That's absurd. If someone confesses to breaking a law, then a policeman will arrest them, because they broke the law. If there are extenuating circumstances, that will come out in court, or an investigation will determine the merits. Nobody will sit back and say "we don't know anything". The burden of proof is shifted to the defendant, because otherwise it would be like proving a negative;the prosecution would have to prove that there is no justification, which is not possible if the defense never offers one. Just as no defense attorney will ever make the argument "he might have had a reason for doing it, but we don't know, so you can't convict him", neither can the Bush administration say "we violated FISA, but you have to prove we can't do that". The Administration has the burden to show that they indeed can do that, which so far it has failed to do.
And once again, you cite the "necessary" phrase, but you have yet to explain how any reasonable person could argue how Bush's NSA program is "necessary", when FISA would have accomplished everything he says he needed.
So you can't;
1)explain how your "sole determination" argument restricts Bush from doing anything, regardless of legality
2)explain which one of the three aspects of the FISA story you are unaware of or disputing, which combined make it indisputable that a law was broken (whether or not it is later justified)
3)explain how circumventing FISA is "necessary" by any reasonable standard.
Given those notable failures, what makes you think you can talk down to a first-grader, much less me?
You response is NOT surprising and as I predicted. Look, let's cut to the chase. I know what you want. In your zeal and frustration you want to somehow play this little dishonest intellectual chess game to somehow conclude that the President "broke the law" and should be impeached. Facts be damned, that's what you want! Just like Plame, Gitmo, Downing Street, WMD's, torture, hamdi, Padilla and the list goes on, you want gratification and you want it NOW!. You want retribution for your disappointments and frustrations and you want them NOW!!. You want to CONCLUDE somehow here on this forum what may take literally YEARS to sort out in the courts, right here and now and your making yourself look foolish in the process. All that aside, no one knows the specifics because of the nature of the program and even if they did, the issue isn't nearly as clear as "murdering a Senator in the streets." It involves constitutional law, precedent, congressional laws and directives that must somehow all be reconciled by the entity charged with that responsibility and that ain't you and me.
"All that aside, no one knows the specifics because of the nature of the program and even if they did, the issue isn't nearly as clear as "murdering a Senator in the streets.""
Really?
"It would be arguable that while murder is clearly illegal, killing an "enemy" in combat with the US, as this Senator clearly would have been in that scenario isn't illegal at all."
"That chain of events is precisely the same as your scenario with the Senator as is the case with this NSA thing."
By your own words, since the chain of events is "precisely the same", it would be arguable that while violating FISA is clearly illegal, there could be justification for it. Fine, that's what I've been arguing all along. But until you can make some sort of argument to justify the "necessary" argument, then your entire position collapses. Again "we don't know, we don't know". What more can we expect to discover? We know FISA's a law, we know it requires warrants, we know Bush circumvented it, we know Bush's description of the plan, and we know their justification of the AUMF. What else could possibly be revealed, since the program is ongoing there is no possibility we will hear specific details!
"Facts be damned"
Rant all you want attributing motives to me. It means nothing, because you have presented no facts. If all you can say is that we have to wait and see how it plays out, then that's all you can say. Meanwhile, stop saying that FISA wasn't violated (even as a possibility), and stop saying that the "necessary" phrase of the AUMF gives Bush a blank check to do whatever he wants, until you can somehow explain it. All you have left are insults and projection, so what does that say about your debating skills?
Rant all you want attributing motives to me. It means nothing, because you have presented no facts.
I have argued from the beginning that there are few, if any facts, so how could I present any?? Duh!! The entire thrust of my argument is that there are very few facts that are public knowledge. It was all, out of necessity and a LACK of facts, a jypothetical conversation, at least from my end. Gosh!!
stop saying that FISA wasn't violated (even as a possibility),
It's stunning sometimes!! Show me where I have EVER said that FISA was NOT violated, even as a possibility. You can't because I NEVER HAVE!!! You need to get your facts straight and try to stick to accurate accusations.
stop saying that the "necessary" phrase of the AUMF gives Bush a blank check to do whatever he wants
Again, I have never said that AUMF gives the President any "blank check." If I wasn't a gentleperson, I'd call you a LIAR, instead, I'll just say your stunningly misinformed and play fast a loose with facts. In either case, it doesn't bode well for you. I HAVE said that the "ALL force necessary" is pretty broad in the language, but I didn't write it.
"I have argued from the beginning that there are few, if any facts, so how could I present any??"
Then don't say "facts be damned"! Why is it my "duh" when I just pointed out the stupidity of your comment?
"Show me where I have EVER said that FISA was NOT violated, even as a possibility."
You got it! Read through this thread...
"It hasn't even been determined, in a meaningful way, that the FISA laws were no complied with."
"In all your twisting, you've admitted that Bush did in fact overrule law." - "I haven't "admitted" anything because I don't know enough about what specifically Bush did, niether do you, neither does MMFA, or the AP, or ABC and on and on. That's my entire point here, is that no one can determine anything of a legal nature definitavely because no one has the facts in their entirety."
How can you claim you didn't make that admission about overruling law (note the wording there), and then claim you've never argued that FISA wasn't violated? I'm clearly talking about FISA, so why not just say "I never denied that Bush overruled FISA" then?
"Again, I have never said that AUMF gives the President any "blank check."...I HAVE said that the "ALL force necessary" is pretty broad in the language, but I didn't write it."
"So, since it gave the President the discretion to use "all necessary force" and it gave him the additional discretion to solely determine what WAS necessary, it was legal!" "
So, where is the line? Where is the cutoff point of presidential power, according to your above quote? I just don't see it as only "broad". "Solely determine" means that if he says it was necessary, then it's legal, that's what you're saying. There's no check or balance on that at all, is there? What is it? Without explaining this, you have no right to call me a liar, because I'm going by your own exact words. Perhaps you will tell me that we just have to trust the president?
If you were a gentleperson...LOL!
"When's the last time you won a Presidential election."
2004. When's the last time a Republican legitimately won an election? 14 years ago?
And your point would be what, anyway? Because republicans are in power, I must be losing the argument? LOL! For someone who seems to think so highly of their own intelligence, it's remarkable how often you are reduced to screaming "we're in power!" as if that has anything at all to do with the conversation. That is truly a sign of personal weakness, that you have to resort to "my daddy can beat up your daddy!". It's pathetic.
You are the one who is clouding the issue. My points have been quite clear, and you are the one who can't decide if Bush violated FISA or not! "We don't know!" Well, you should, and I think you do - just be intellectually honest for once in your life.
"When's the last time you won a Presidential election."
2004.
Indeed!!! Wow, you better act fast because Bush has already appointed 2 Supreme Court Justices and it should be President Kerry (it hurt to even type that) doing it.
And again, you attempt to conflate results with merits of arguments, as if the lack of action by republicans in Congress proves that the republican president did nothing wrong. This has never been valid or sensible, and continuing to try it will not make it more so.
How is it implied that Bush can overrule law? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Especially when article two SPECIFICALLY says the president will take care tthe laws are FAITHFULLY ENFORCED? See taking care the laws are faithfully enforced is like the OPPOSITE of ignoring or overruling the law. So not only is it NOT implied it is specifically DENIED the president IN the constitution