Milbank, Matthews falsely suggested that only Democrats and "poor Republicans like Bob Barr" question the legality of NSA program
SUMMARY: On MSNBC's Hardball, Chris Matthews and The Washington Post's Dana Milbank agreed that the American public is rallying to support President Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program, and that only Democrats and "poor Republicans like [former Rep.] Bob Barr [R-GA]" are raising objections based on the legality of the program.
On the February 9 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews and Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank agreed that on the issue of President Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program, the American public tends to "rally around" the argument that Bush is simply doing what is necessary to protect the country, rather than agree with the objections of Democrats and "poor Republicans like [former Rep.] Bob Barr [R-GA]" regarding the legality of the program. "[P]eople aren't making these fine distinctions," Milbank said. Matthews agreed, saying, "[P]eople would rather be protected in their bodies and souls, rather than potentially against a possible infringement of their civil liberties." But in depicting the debate over the controversial National Security Agency (NSA) program as clearly tilted in Bush's favor, Milbank and Matthews ignored both the results of a poll that they themselves cited showing Americans evenly divided on the issue and Milbank's own reporting, which has recently shown a significant level of concern about the program among prominent Republicans.
Milbank appeared on Hardball to discuss Bush's disclosure of an Al Qaeda plot to attack Los Angeles purportedly foiled by U.S. counter-terrorism efforts. Answering questions about whether the NSA program helped prevent the L.A. plot, Milbank said, "[A]s a political matter, it doesn't matter."
From the February 9 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MILBANK: You know, when members of Congress -- if they were to put something out, it would be a leak of classified information. When the president does it, he's just declassifying it. So, it's something they felt they didn't need to do before. It's something they want to do to boost the -- his ratings on this -- the NSA surveillance program. Now, this wasn't necessarily related to that surveillance program.
MATTHEWS: Well, let me tell you something more. NBC is reporting that -- I've got a hot note on it -- that it -- not only is it not necessarily related, it's unrelated. That domestic spying had nothing to do with catching this plot in the action.
MILBANK: But, Chris, as a political matter, it doesn't matter. There was an [Associated Press] AP poll out today that showed the program is now supported by nearly half of the public, 48 percent, up from 42 percent earlier.
The fact is, people aren't making these fine distinctions; and whether it's the Democrats or whether it's some poor Republicans like Bob Barr at CPAC [Conservative Political Action Conference] today trying to make the case that, wait a second, think about the Constitution, the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] FISA law, this and that. The president says, "Look, I'm protecting you," and people want to rally around that, and this helps regardless of whether it's related or not.
MATTHEWS: I think that's been pretty clear. I don't want to say I know the future but it's clear that people would rather be protected in their bodies and souls, rather than potentially against a possible infringement of their civil liberties.
The first call on you is to stay alive, and a lot of people would say these guys may go over the top once in a while, but I want to be protected by a tough guy, not by a civil libertarian. That hasn't changed. Remember how [former President] George [H.W.] Bush Sr. ran against [former Democratic presidential candidate] Mike Dukakis [in 1988] and said he was a card-carrying member of the [American Civil Liberties Union] ACLU. Everybody knew what that meant.
While the AP/Ipsos poll Milbank cited indeed showed an increase in the number of Americans who now believe the government should be able to monitor "phone and internet communications between American citizens in the United States and suspected terrorists ... without a warrant" over the number of Americans who had a month earlier, it nonetheless found that public opinion appears evenly split on the issue: 48 percent approve of the program, while 50 percent disapprove. The data hardly warrant Matthews's and Milbank's claims that "people aren't making these fine distinctions" regarding the program's legality and that "people would rather be protected in their bodies and souls." In fact, half of the public is apparently concerned with those "distinctions."
Moreover, Milbank's characterization of those objecting to the program as Democrats and "some poor Republicans like Bob Barr" is undermined by two of his own Post columns published in recent days. In his February 9 "Washington Sketch" column, for example, Milbank used the following words to describe the growing Republican opposition to the Bush administration program on Capitol Hill:
Who's afraid of the Big Bad Bush?
[...]
[N]ot Rep. Heather A. Wilson. The New Mexico Republican, in a tough reelection fight, defied the White House by demanding briefings on the administration's warrantless surveillance program and calling for legislation on it. "The checks and balances in our system of government are very important," she told reporters.
[...]
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) pronounced himself "a bit amused" by Vice President Cheney's concession that he'd be "willing to listen" to Congress about the surveillance program. "He's got a very skewed misunderstanding of the Constitution," Hagel told The Washington Post's Charles Babington. "It doesn't work that way. The Congress is a co-equal branch of government. ... So, to arrogantly say, 'We're willing to listen to them,' that's not good enough."
In his February 7 column on Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's February 6 testimony on the surveillance program before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Milbank noted that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) raised concerns about the lack of a "check and balance" on the NSA program:
A trio of Republicans on the committee vied to serve as Gonzales's chief defender. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah) used his questioning time to attack those "people who are wildly saying that the president is violating the law." Sens. Jeff Sessions (Ala.) and John Cornyn (Tex.) joined the sister of a Sept. 11 victim at a news conference outside the hearing room.
But other Republicans were skeptical. "In all honesty, Mr. Attorney General," Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) advised, the "argument that you're making is very dangerous." He warned that, eventually, "there is no check and balance."
Further, while Milbank highlighted Barr's comments at the CPAC conference regarding the warrantless surveillance program, he made no mention of the fact that Graham raised concerns about the domestic spying at the same event. According to a February 10 New York Times article, Graham not only criticized the NSA program, but noted that "many conservatives like himself were troubled" by it:
Some conservatives were scornful of White House efforts to allow at least some illegal immigrants to work legally in this country, and some challenged the legality of Mr. Bush's surveillance program, saying that it was an abuse of presidential power and that Mr. Bush should come to the Congress and ask for authority to allow it.
''Think hard down the road to a future administration not occupied by the people we have now,'' said Bob Barr, a former congressman from Georgia. ''We have to keep that precedent in mind: That gauntlet, if we throw it down, will be taken up by someone in the future that we really don't like and be used against us.''
Mr. Graham said many conservatives like himself were troubled by the administration's arguments for its program to eavesdrop on communications. ''The inherent power argument, if you take it to the natural conclusion, there is no role for Congress in a time of war,'' he said.
As Media Matters for America has noted, numerous other prominent Republicans and conservatives have expressed serious concerns about the NSA program, including Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Susan Collins (R-ME), John McCain (R-AZ), John Sununu (R-NH), Sam Brownback (R-KA), Bruce Fein, former deputy attorney general under President Reagan, and Norman J. Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
What does he mean? Poor, as in having little money? Poor, as in being a Republican of poor quality -- not a "good" Republican, but a "poor" one? Approval of the President's domestic spying program is a function of being a "good" Republican? But, don't all Americans approve of it?
This rhetoric is fascinating. "Look, the public agrees about this; they want to be kept safe. It's only Democrats and Republicans who aren't really good Republicans who don't agree with it." So, only good Republicans count as the public. What are the other 50% of the population, resident aliens?
The saddest thing about this exchange is that it, on the off chance it's true, is a scathing indictment of the mentality of those "people" who fit Milbank's description.
I was going to bypass THIS thread because it's simply a REPEAT of the same disingenuous malarkey only featuring NEW characters spewing it.
So I'll REPEAT myself as well:
Get a damn warrant! Then wiretap the bad guys. 95% of the American people would have NO problem with this. In fact they'd be thrilled!!
IF you have a LEGITIMATE reason to wiretap, then there should be NO problem acquiring a warrant. Then it's all on the up&up. Legal. No reason for anyone to QUESTION your motives. You get to wiretap to your hearts content AND our Civil Liberties remain intact.
WHY is it that something SO simple doesn't get through to SOME people?
with on this one. Getting a warrant is too tedious. If you are foreign to foreign you go one direction, foreign to u.s. another, u.s. to u.s yet another. You can't get warrants without knowing who is on the calls or addresses and this can be impossible with hidden i.p. addresses and disposable cell phones. Even with the current system which allows a bypass a FISA it is a serious of red tape hoops.
What needs to be done is for congress to pass a law that gives the president the right to warrantless searches. Since he has inherent power anyway, this would put the congress legislatively behind it. Name a small monitoring committee to watch the program to minimize civil rights complaints.
GW doesn't have to personally go to the FISA court. If a 72 hour retroactive application for a warrant is not enough time, then ask for an extension. Of all the wiretaps in Bush's program, why has NOT ONE been reported to the FISA court. They don't have time to do ONE either? You're telling me that the Bush admin. and the NSA have enough time, personnel, and resources to wiretap, analyze, and organize an enormous number of cases but not the resources to send ONE LAWYER to FISA to get just ONE WARRANT. The reality is that the Bush administration STILL does not want anyone in any of the other branches of government to see who is being wiretapped. THE BUSH ADMIN IS WORKING OVERTIME TO AVOID GETTING WARRANTS SUPPOSEDLY TO DO LESS WORK.
"What needs to be done is for congress to pass a law that gives the president the right to warrantless searches." -Leatherhelmet
We've all heard of the term "legislating from the bench." Here you are advocating "judging from the White House." Hey let's save even more time and give the president the power to declare war instead of Congress. Too much red tape.
Also, several Republicans in the House and Senate have said that Bush does not have inherent power to conduct warrantless surveillance. One is Sen. Arlen Specter:
[link to thinkprogress.org]
STEPHANOPOULOS: There was a lot of talk about that at the Alito hearings, and listening closely to you I certainly seem to take away that you believe the president does not have the right, does not have the inherent power under the Constitution to circumvent a constitutional law, and as far as you are concerned, the FISA law is constitutional, isn’t it?
SPECTER: Well, I started off by saying that he didn’t have the authority under the resolution authorizing the use of force. The president has to follow the Constitution. Where you have a law which is constitutional, like Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, there still may be collateral different powers in the president under wartime circumstances.
I have a novel idea that will ELIMINATE COMPLAINTS instead of just minimizing it. GET A WARRANT.
How does a warrantless search help the government stop, kill, or catch terrorists? It doesn't. Getting a warrant is a secret process under FISA. Getting a warrant doesn't make surveillance cases public, thus not warning terrorists and does not hinder at all the government's ability to stop, kill or catch terrorists.
You are arguing like the Bush administration is, that America should should sacrifice some of it's basic Civil Liberties so that the Bush administration can avoid tedium. It's not even about getting terrorists anymore. THAT'S CRAZY. Wake up.
that getting a warrant is time-consuming process even if you make it sound like baking a cake.
W's administration used FISA thousands of times. They didn't use when it was easy to see that it was an overbearing, time-consuming, tedious system of trying to track people when time is of the essence and technology overpowers FISA.
Here is a nice article by Rick Francona called "Why FISA Isn't Enough" that explains some of the logistical problems with FISA.
[link to msnbc.msn.com]
The attorney general in his testimony spoke of how much time intensive the procedure is since he must initiate each one.
The process is virtually impossible to do with warrants. The enemy knows the law and does everything it can to use disposable cell phones, emails that be accessed from any public computer, using ISP addresses that are masked. to make the job tougher. You have to have a certain amount of information to qualify for a warrant. Since the addresses and numbers constantly change you would have to continually request more and more warrants. What if you need to track 100o suspects constantly on the move and constantly changing phones and forcing you into tens of thousands of warrants in a short time?
The idea of having warrants for this kind of surveillance is archaic and certainly overburdening a system designed to protect the general public. Since Bush has inherent powers (no matter how much Solon or Arlen Spector don't like it), it seems that for the good of national security and a balance of civil rights that Congress should come up with a way to do warrantless searches with a monitoring committee.
placing warrants. But your solution cannot be more wrong. Your solution by using a monitoring committee clearly shows that you don't know the importance of warrants. Ending warrants for any type of domestic surveillance altogether removes a Check that the Judicial Branch has on the Executive Branch. Even if it transfers that Check to the Legislative Branch like you noted, it is not good enough because it completely takes the courts out of the picture.
Whenever problems arise that expose laws to be archaic. You change them to fix the archaic parts. In this case, a solution is needed to make it easier to get warrants, not to get rid of warrants because warrants are not the part that is archaic. The most important aspect of warrants is that the FISA courts are informed of all domestic surveillance activity. If they want to lower requirements, fine. If they want bulk quickie warrants, fine. Need more than 72 hours, fine. Just get warrants.
your solution keeps bumping into the heart of the argument.
It is a system of checks and balances and balances of power. This type of spying is the executive branch's power. The legislative branch cannot force him to do a warrant system, they don't have the constitutional authority.
The two branches will have to work out a compromise. Certainly a bulk warrant, simplified warrant system should be offered as a solution. But Bush may not like being told who he can spy on by the legislative branch, since it is not their decision when it comes to international intelligence gathering.
And in your zeal to appoint Bush God-King you say that Congress has no authority to force the President to do what the fourth amendment specifically demands he do. On the whacky world of Planet Wingnut maybe.
and the law because to follow them would be to hard? Too much trouble? Are you kidding me? Here, President Gump, here are all my rights, I wouldnt want to trouble you. I wouldnt want my freedom to be an imposition on you. MAN, if you are that desperate to be a slave as to make this ludicrous argument just buy a house with a basement and get your wife to handcuff you to the wall a couple of times a day and leave MY freedom out of it
What rights exactly are you losing?
Guess what, if a FISA court grants a warrant, it is top secret. You will NEVER know if they are watching you. You will NEVER know any details of what is going on.
The NSA program is targeting toward watching terrororists who are communicating with each other or U.S persons within the U.S. Does this affect you????
Your argument would be more consistant if you were arguing that W's program and NSA, since it is secret, is unconstitutional.
But it's a moot point. Bush has inherent powers as the presidency has had all along, so you have lost no more freedoms that you had to begin with.
Someone WOULD know. There WOULD be oversight and my rights are still BEING protected. THAT is the point. A judge SOMEWHERE will be looking out and keeping track so that excesses and purely partisan spying will NOT be done. This is not complicated. The fourth amendment and FISA demands a warrant. Bush needs to follow the law, and constitution, its really just that simple.
The NSA program is targeting toward watching terrororists who are communicating with each other or U.S persons within the U.S. Does this affect you???? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
And you know this HOW?? Because Bush who lies like most people breathe SAYS SO? Perhaps thats good enough for YOU its not good enough for me or anyone else that thinks freedom is important. YOU keep WHINING that I actually think President Gump should follow the law, just because its in the constitution. I sure understand you are begging for a dictator, I am not.
Your argument would be more consistant if you were arguing that W's program and NSA, since it is secret, is unconstitutional. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The law can be whatever it is. I can live with that, what I cant live with is president Gump telling me the law and the constitution is so much toilet paper and he will violate it if he darn well feels like it <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You keep saying this and saying this trying to magically make it come true. Bunk I read article two and there is no because I said so clause in it. It DOES say the president will take care the law is faithfully executed it does not say, unless he really doesnt WANT TO. Cough up where this magical inherent power is in the constitution or give it up. The president no more has inherent power to do what the fourth amendment says explicitly he CANNOT do than he has inherent power to declare himself king and disband congress. IF he can claim inherent, magical, mystical, invisible powers to do one what stops him from claiming them to do the other?
[link to www.fas.org]
Maybe you can't find in the constitution, but five appellate courts did, and the 2002 FISA Court of Review did.
"The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information"
And if you read through it, they talk about whether FISA expands the president's powers.
"We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.""
This was 2002. Not 1978, so you can't complain this was prior to FISA. Since there is no law taking away the President's inherent powers, he has them.
Put in by FISA in order to comply with the qualification that FISA be used only for Foriegn intelligence uses and not criminal uses.
and that the restrictions imposed by the FISA court are not required by FISA <<<<<<<<<<
Notice basis of the law itself is not being questioned only the specifics of their minimization requirements and it is taken for granted that FISA IS THE LAW
the court found that the government had shown probable cause to believe that the target is an agent of a foreign power and otherwise met the basic requirements of FISA. <<<<<<<<<<
Again not only is FISA assumed to be the law but there is a finding of meeting its basic requirements did Bush do THIS?
The ruling also held that "the court held that the Executive Branch should be excused from securing a warrant only when “the object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agents or collaborators,” Does Bushs program uphold this principle? Since no one has been consulted on each case and there is no oversight its hard to see how. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This: it rejected the government’s assertion that “if surveillance is to any degree directed at gathering foreign intelligence, the executive may ignore the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.<
This: Congress recognized that this certification would “assure[] written accountability within the Executive Branch” and provide “an internal check on Executive Branch arbitrariness.” <<
This: We do not decide the issue but note that to the extent a FISA order comes close to meeting Title III, that certainly bears on its reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Makes it clear that the fourth amendment protection is of paramount concern not a disposable asset that Bush can treat like a suggestion to follow unless he doesnt want to. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Directly following your quote about the President having the authority FISA could not encroach on is THIS: It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Not in ANY way stating that the President has unlimited authority to wiretap anyone he wants anytime he wants. Rather it was talking about the BOUNDRIES of such constitutional authority. YOU and BUSH keep claiming he has some magical invisible authority to decide for himself the limits of his authority which according to the two of you dont exist, YOUR take is he is God-King and can do anything he wants as far as warrants are concerned <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The ruling says THIS EXPLICITLY: That is not to say that we should be prepared to jettison Fourth Amendment requirements in the interest of national security. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Which is the exact OPPOSITE of what you keep claiming
These are all from the very ruling you are citing here. They do NOT bolster your case that Bush has magical, invisible, unlimited power as Pharoah to do any dam thing he wants with ZERO oversight as long as he periodically says either 9/11 or terrorism.
wish the opinion gives the opposite of what I have been saying it does not.
The opinion was that despite the ACLU's challenges, that FISA is legal. And Bush has used FISA thousands of times.
In the summary in the end the court acknowledges Bush's inherent powers (since you have asked 100 times where this power comes from, do you see where the FISA Court of Review mentions his inherent powers??)
"Even without taking into account the President’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance, we think the procedures and government showings required under FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant standards, certainly come close. We, therefore, believe firmly, applying the balancing test drawn from Keith, that FISA as amended is constitutional because the surveillances it authorizes are reasonable."
They are saying even if you don't take into account Bush's inherent powers that FISA is legal. Do you see that they acknowledge Bush has inherent constitutional powers??? Do you finally acknowledge, as the FISA Court of Review does, that Bush has inherent powers under the Constitution of the United States of America????????? Given that he has these powers, you are going to need a Supreme Court order or a constitutional amendment to get rid of them. There is no doubt the powers have limits, but given the historical nature that foreign to domestic surveillance is the inherent powers of the executive branch, the NSA terrorist surveillance is constitutional and any law Congress makes cannot infringe on the executive branch's basic inherent rights.
You keep ignoring the fact that the ruling acknowledges the President's inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches in pursuit of foreign intelligence. The issue here is the surveillance of U.S. persons. The president has no inherent authority to circumvent the 4th amendment to the Constitution. The ruling you have cited does not support what you say it does. Solon is absolutely right here. Here's a summary:
Solon is correct. You're overinterpreting the FISA decision. Most fundamentally, the president does not have the "inherent powers" to wiretap U.S. citizens without a warrant, wartime or not. Second, the cases the FISA court refers to were all decided pre-FISA and are thus only barely relevant to the point you're trying to make. Third, the paragraph you keep quoting does not directly relate to the issue the court was deciding - it's what people who know how to read court decisions call "dicta." It reveals what the court might think about a tangential subject but does not have the force of law. Fourth, the FISA court does not have the authority to determine the limits of the president's constitutional authority. Lastly, if your entire argument in favor of Bush's domestic spying program is based on one paragraph of dicta from the FISA court along with your uninformed opinion of what the president's "inherent powers" are, then you have almost nothing. You simply cannot make your case with what you have.
FISA is too much red tape? You can get a warrant up to 72 hours after the fact under FISA.
There is zero reason not to use the FISA courts, and short of breaking the law, there isn't much you can do to make it faster...
Get a damn warrant! Then wiretap the bad guys. 95% of the American people would have NO problem with this. In fact they'd be thrilled!! IF you have a LEGITIMATE reason to wiretap, then there should be NO problem acquiring a warrant. Then it's all on the up&up. Legal. No reason for anyone to QUESTION your motives. You get to wiretap to your hearts content AND our Civil Liberties remain intact.
Your post assumes that no good reason for NOT getting a warrant exists. Would you support it if you were told of the GOOD reason not to go to court and agreed with the validity of the reason?? The nature of the program makes it impossible to have full transparency. I'm willing to trust this or ANY President with that authority and I personally believe the Executive has that constitutional authority.
Let me offer you this analogy because it seems to be part of your perspective that the President should just get the warrants to make everybody happy assuming no consequences. Assume for a minute that a thightrope walker had gotten a job performing at a very exclusive Dinner Club. When he showed up to perform, he was wearing his tight rope walking shoes. The manager tells him that the dress code says that he must be wearing men's dress shoes with a 1/2" heel. The tightrope walker tells him that would be very dangerous and that he's pretty sure that he would be exempt from the rule but the manager says, "oh well, maybe so, but just wear these shoes just to make everybody happy." They had a terrible mess to clean later because this tightrope walker operated without a safety net. (-:
Since FISA has been in existance since 1979 that means tightrope walkers since 1979 have used the heels you talked about AND NEVER ONCE COMPLAINED. So if she doesnt want to use them, just as I dont like using this totally ludicrous analogy, he can certainly find someone who will. If President Gump doesnt want to protect America while following the law, if he is not competent enough to do so, then he can resign just like the tightrope walker and we can find someone who IS competent enough to do the job. NO ONE has shown an iota of evidence that FISA is in ANY way too restrictive. I havent even heard the administration use that argument
As for the inherent power you THINK he has, well you can THINK fairies come to your house and eat your peanut butter but I bet you cant SHOW they do. I have article two of the Constitution right here next to me, there is no because I said so clause. IF you can point one out to me be my guest, other than that what you THINK just isnt that relevant especially since you didnt even TRY tomake a rational argument based on the Constitution as to where this inherent power comes from. If Bush has inherent power to just ignore the fourth amendment why would he not have inherent power to ignore the Bill of Rights altogether? Ignore the constitutuion itself. Forget about elections he has the inherent power to declare himserlf Pharoah. He has inherent power to imprison anyone without trial, actually he has tried that one, he has inherent power to disband Congress declare himself God-King for life and banish elections. See I have given every bit as much backup for his inherent power to do all these things as YOU have to say he has the inherent power to do exactly what the fourth amendments specifically says he CANNOT do.
Since FISA has been in existance since 1979 that means tightrope walkers since 1979 have used the heels you talked about AND NEVER ONCE COMPLAINED.
You don't KNOW for a fact WHAT'S gone on since 1979, its a SECRET!!!! Also, we haven't been in a state of war since 1979, so the situation NOW is just a bit more critical, or the "highwire" is a bit thinner and the net's been taken away. The analogy is RIGHT ON!!
Italics off
End tag.
What was that little problem we had in Kosovo? What about that little thingy in Grenada? I seem to remember a bit of unpleasantness in Iraq in 91 those were teaparties maybe? Has Congress DECLARED WAR? If not then your argument holds NO water, in fact it holds no water period. Its ludicrous to say its secret we wouldnt know. When Clinton had FISA changed was that in secret? You are grasping at straws
What was that little problem we had in Kosovo? What about that little thingy in Grenada? I seem to remember a bit of unpleasantness in Iraq in 91 those were teaparties maybe?
The authorization to use military force AUMF is a defacto declaration of war. You might be correct about the first gulf war, I don't recall whether there was a congressional resolution or not, but certainly NOT Kosovo or Grenada. None of the examples that you give are comparable to the current conflict. We had NOT been attacked on US Soil in any of those conflicts. Again, you don't KNOW what went on since 1979. The fact that the NYTimes didn't print anything, doesn't mean that it didn't exist. Apparently this current program has been going on since shortly after 9-11, but the NYTimes didn't write their subversive article until recently. It certainly DOESN'T mean the activity wasn't going on prior to the act of treason by the NYTimes, just like you don't know exactly WHAT HAS happened since 1979 and the fact that if it was going on, IT WAS SECRET so you probably won't know at all!!
for the first Gulf war. Laws are specific things. They dont apply on Monday but not thursday. They dont apply during the war YOU want them to but not during the ones that you dont want them to. If something were contingent on us being at war only a declaration of war would qualify but there is no wartime exception to the president following the law the Supreme Court has said so. The Bill of rights does not cease to exist because of any percieved danger. We were in FAR more danger during the Cuban missile crisis. The Soviet Union was a much more dangerous adversary than terrorists. We faced virtual vaporization at any given moment. That didnt nor does this situation allow the President to reach up his ass and decide he has magical, invisible powers to supercede the Constitution. If he can claim he has such powers to ignore the fourth amendment what would stop him from saying he has the inherent, magical power to declare himself dictator for life and disband congress. You are trying to give the President a blank check no reasonable argument can be made our founding fathers would have given him. You are a nice lady. I dont mean to be nasty but there simply is no logic whatsoever in your stance here, none.
Lodi
There are degrees of transparencies as are there degrees of going or not going to court. A plea bargain is a degree of not going to court, for good reason.
Are there logical reasons for not getting a warrant? Yes, there are probably many logical reasons, however none are acceptable. You think this president has the constitutional authority, to authorize warrant less taps and ignore the FISA law. Maybe if he was a little more creative he could have obtained the warrants and followed the law, while still insuring US security.
Let me use your story as an example. Had your tight rope walker worn the dress shoes with the two inch heals around his neck, and his tight rope shoes on his feet, he could have avoided the mess and still complied with the rule.
This administration has concrete shoes (pun intended) they are not creative in their thinking or good at thinking on there feet.
I'm willing to trust this or ANY President with that authority and I personally believe the Executive has that constitutional authority.
If I may ask, on what are you basing this opinion?
"While the AP/Ipsos poll Milbank cited indeed showed an increase in the number of Americans who now believe the government should be able to monitor "phone and internet communications between American citizens in the United States and suspected terrorists ... without a warrant" over the number of Americans who had a month earlier, it nonetheless found that public opinion appears evenly split on the issue: 48 percent approve of the program, while 50 percent disapprove. The data hardly warrant Matthews's and Milbank's claims that "people aren't making these fine distinctions" regarding the program's legality and that "people would rather be protected in their bodies and souls." In fact, half of the public is apparently concerned with those "distinctions.""
What a spin job, the link to the poll clearly shows a shift toward the public wanting to allow warrantless searches.
I am not a big believer in these polls but this spin job is too much to let pass by.
By substituting “Americans” for the magic word "terrorists" suddenly 6% more people say sure, go ahead, do whatever you have to. But here's the problem: this program includes DATAMINING which invades on MY, YOURS, EVERYONE'S privacy, NOT JUST TERRORISTS. So it is fallacious to imply that the program is EXCLUSIVE to terrorists. Also, I am compelled to add this: if Bill Clinton had broken the FISA law (which he didn't in 1994; there was no FISA provision regarding the legality of warrantless searching till 1995) all we would have heard from the rabid Right is IMPEACH him, IMPEACH him, he broke the law, blah, blah, bluster, whine, complain. But now that it's "one of your team" it's "Oh, President Bush has that power already, it's OK, let him do his job" yada, yada, yada, ass-kiss, adore, beam.
And to test your “loyalty” to the office not the man, please remove “Bush” and replace it with “Hillary Clinton”. Now do you agree with that sentiment? Admit it, you don’t. Hypocrite.
Leatherhead.
The problem is that you really can’t legitimately claim any difference between the “approves and the disapproves” the percentage difference between the sides is outside the margin of error. The only thing you could legitimately say is that the country is split.
As far and movement up or down is concerned, it was noted several times that the movement is toward approval. So where is the spin?
Secondly, I am not a lawyer and don’t know the ins and outs of obtaining a warrant under FISA. Most lawyers that have spoken against the warrant less taps seem to think that it is not as big a deal as you make it out. In fairness, I have heard lawyers from the other side espouse the red tape theory as you have.
However, it boils down to a matter of trust. I would be more incline to support the wiretaps if I trusted this President. I don’t. He is lazy and does not like to be inconvenience or questioned, and looks for the easy way out. He tends to freeze up during emergencies, i.e. 911 and Katrina.
The Joe Wilson controversy demonstrates that this administration will abuse power in the name of National Security to punish a critic even if it’s not in the best interests of the country. I lived through the Nixon years and have seen the first hand the abuse of government. You say FISA is red tape laden. Maybe, or maybe it’s just a lazy President, not willing to work a little harder to make thinks happen legally.
In addition it’s not the gathering of information that’s the problem it’s the interpretation, processing and action that is the trick. We now know that President Bush and his administration was warned in August 2001 about the possibility of a terrorist attack using commercial airplanes, and the information wasn’t taken seriously. The sad part is that they still haven’t learned from their mistakes. The fact that this Administration was taken by surprise over the Palestinian election of the Hamas party into power proves it.
For myself I would NOT be more willing to trust wiretaps without warrants because I trusted the President more. We are a Nation of Laws not of personalities. I distrust the cult of personality. Whatever this president can do so can the next. I would never be niave enough to trust EVERYONE who might become president we have already elected a Richard Nixon (twice) and a George W Gump. Our freedoms must be sacrosanct and we must protect them because Americans have only those rights they can defend. ONLY THOSE RIGHTS. If we let Bush cut a hole in the Bill of Rights who knows what truck some future unscrupulous President might drive through it.
I heartily agree Solon. My understanding of the Bill of Rights is based on that concept. Most everyone was very happy with the existing revolutionaries at the time...however, they all understood based on past history that sometimes you have good leaders, and sometimes you have bad leaders. So, although the constitution gave a great framework for government, it still wasn't enough...and they wanted basic rights spelled out so that the government couldn't go "bad" and hurt people again.
Anyone who thinks it's okay to have warrantless wiretapping should think hard about it again. A good rule of thumb for so very many concepts is simply this - imagine the worst possible president (Clinton for some, current Bush for others)...if the worst president shouldn't have that power, then neither should the best president...because you'll never know which one is next...
Good Point.
... you must believe that if Bush is made to obtain warrants (wear the dress shoes), that he will surely die as a result.
To be a proper analogy, once again, we have to look at the situation logically. LODI compares a DRESS CODE to the LAW. Fair enough, so far.
The LAW applies to EVERYBODY, with no exceptions. This would include, in a restaurant, that the patrons can be required to wear a coat and tie (0r be refused admittance), but to avoid charges of hypocricy and unfair treatment, the employees of the restaurant should be similarly attired. Is this REASONABLE? Not even. The hat-check girl will not be wearing a coat and tie, nor will the chef, nor will the bus boys. All will be dressed appropriately to their ROLES. If there is entertainment, of a rock band or a dance troupe or acrobats, THEY will not be following the dress code, AND NOBODY WOULD EXPECT THEM TO.
So, the analogy is foolish and ludicrous on its face, but LODI got in the point he wishes to make: Expecting this president to follow THE LAW would be, in LODI's estimation, deadly.
Perhaps that is so. Perhaps, even considering his analogy was completely bogus, LODI has fallen on the TRUTH: Defending our rights, insisting on following THE LAW, and demanding that the CONSTITUTION be honored, and every RIGHT protected ... can be dangerous business. In truth, our Revolutionary WAR was fought on this basis, and many tens of thousands DIED to defend America's principles.
What LODI is saying is that LODI is simply scared. THE LAW is "too restrictive" to the man LODI is trusting to protect him, and so THE LAW must be eliminated. LODI is so scared, he does not wish to DEFEND his rights, he instead wishes only for the promise of protection from a man who has demonstrated no ability to provide it, but nonetheless is eager to suspend American's rights wholesale.
Our founding fathers and revolutionary warriors were indeed "walking a tightrope", and many fell to their deaths. The deemed it was WORTH IT, risking everything for freedom. LODI is not so inclined. LODI is more interested in giving up freedom if someone will "promise" him his fanny will be safe from harm.
Dictatorships throughout history have been enabled and formed because there was a segment of every population which wished for domination, and had no use for FREEDOM. There are some people born to be LED, to be dominated, and FEAR that if expected to defend themselves, they would utterly fail. So they support a dictator, and pledge fealty. Because they are too scared to be FREE.
Ironically, those who fall into this fearful, weak, and pitiful category have historically been ground up by the dictator and discarded as less than human.
Which they are, by self definition.
To understand LODI's analogy ... ... you must believe that if Bush is made to obtain warrants (wear the dress shoes), that he will surely die as a result.
Your premise is WRONG. You must not believe that you will SURELY die, but you must believe that the chances of death are clearly higher. Of course the rest of your post contained all the "off the shelf" arguments so pathetically expected from Tex, the dictatorships, tyranny, the revolution, the fear mongering of violating the Constitution and ignoring laws, they seem to be his mainstay. That said, there can be a very strong argument made, and probably will be made, the the power to carry on this activity is an inherent Constitutional power of the President, time will tell. Clearly, even according to Jane Harmon, a DEMOCRAT, the program is immensly important and very effective. Of course, Tex cares more about bashing a President, than protecting his fellow citizens. What else is new??
WHERE is there any inherent power mentioned in the Constitution, the constitution says EXPLICITLY that the president will take care to faithfully execute the LAW, now IF he feels like it, not when it is expedient, NO EXCEPTION EXISTS in the constitution to this declaration, IF he has inherent power to disregard the FOURTH Amendment, Why not the FIRST Amendment? As long as we are making up inherent powers out of fairy dust why not an inherent power to declare himself dictator for life? There is no logical reason why if he cannot claim one he cannot claim the other
WHERE is there any inherent power mentioned in the Constitution, the constitution says EXPLICITLY that the president will take care to faithfully execute the LAW...
Inherent power clearly exists. In 2002 the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, created by the FISA statute, accepted that "the president does have that authority" and noted "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power." Also, section 1811 of the FISA statute recognizes that during a period of authorized war the president must have some authority to engage in electronic surveillance "without a court order."
Read the entire article here....
[link to www.opinionjournal.com]
Not only does it appear to be completely within the Executive's Constitutional authority, IT MAKES SENSE!!
Bold Off!!!
This was already covered HERE at MMFA, FISA specifically has authorization for warrantless wiretaps under SPECIFIC circumstances to whit:
[link to caselaw.lp.findlaw.com]
Section 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order;
)(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that - (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at - (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;
Bush does NOT comply with these qualifications. This however was a MUCH better try.
"Notwithstanding any other law......" What does that part mean??
Could make a new law that further defines this area, that further adjusts the limits of foriegn intelligence gathering. That, as yet, has not happened. What that means is you kept asking why we were saying the President should have gone to Congress to get the law changed if he thought he needed more leeway, this nothwithstanding is what we were talking about. As yet this is the law and I draw your attention to the part that says:
there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;
Could make a new law that further defines this area, that further adjusts the limits of foriegn intelligence gathering.
Some would argue that the AUMF is indeed that law "notwithstanding." The directive in that law is "all necessary force." Could that reasonably be construed as to include the gathering of wartime intelligence?? This morning I read through Justice O'Conners "opinion" surrounding the Hamdi case in its entirety and I came away with one over riding emotion. Is this a great country or what??!!! The beauty of her words and indeed the very system that we are all blessed to live in was astonishing to me. O'Conner in that writing referenced many times the AUMF while at the same time referencing the very essence of our nation; liberty, justice and freedom. I came away thinking that much deference is given to the Executive in times of War, but certainly no "blank check" as O'Conner points out. After reading O'Conners' opinion I came away thinking more than ever that anyone who believes they can draw any definitive conclusion about this issue is fooling themselves. It is a very complex constitutional issue and the language in the AUMF will be, in my estimation, a very integral part of that ruling. We should all let this magnificent system work it way through this issue before condemning or justifying anything as it relates to this.
The problem with the AUMF overriding FISA is that the AUMF does not indicate any intention by Congress to do so. The Congressional Research Service report provides compelling reasons to determine that it was NOT Congress' intent that the AUMF would override FISA. (See the section of the report headed "The Domestic Sphere versus Military Operations.")
The problem with the AUMF overriding FISA is that the AUMF does not indicate any intention by Congress to do so.
In the opinion that I mentioned that I read this morning by O'Conner, it referenced AUMF many times surrounding the issue that was at stake in Hamdi, the indefinate detention of an American Citizen and conceded that Congress, by virtue of its "all necessary force" provision had given the Executive wide lattitude. I don't know, ultimately it might be concluded that they did not, but reading the O'Conner opinion I came away believing that wide lattitude will be given the Executive because of that AUMF. You could end up being correct, but certainly no one can make any definitive conclusion at this time and anyone that seriously believe they can is kidding themselves.
Yes, the in the Hamdi case Justice O'Connor acknowledged the president's authority, but remember that the administration LOST that case. The Court determined that Hamdi had the right to challenge his detention in a court of law, although the president did have authority to detain him. The president's authority under the AUMF does not free him from all constraints.
And this was specific to the reasoning, WAS captured in Afghanistan, not picked up on the Streets of New Orleans. I keep reading that the administration specifically asked for language to allow them to use this power domestically and was rebuffed to now make the assertion that authority specifically denied them WAS included implicitly is ludicrous on the face of it.
1811. Authorization during time of war Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.
We can debate the merits of the FISA law and its constitutionality. However, your assertion that the FSIA statute allows the President some authority to engage in electronic surveillance “ without a court order.” would have ended on Sept 29th 2001.
Also Section 1802 part B states this limitation: “there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party”
Admittedly I am not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar however, having just read Article II sections 1 of the United States constitution, I see no exception granted the President as asserted by the WSJ article. What I did read was this:
“Before he enter on the Execution of his office he shall take the following Oath of Affirmation: - I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, PRESERVE, POTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.” (caps are mine). That would include the Bill of Rights. Any authority granted the President by the term “executive Power” is implied and debatable, and cannot trump any specific stated obligation such as, “ preserve, protect……….the Constitution of the United States.”
Lastly Mr. Turner in his WSJ article is cherry picking references regarding the implied power of the President. I am certain I could find as many references that speak to the checks and balance’s as well as the limitations of Presidential power.
The president takes an oath to protect the Constitution, not those parts of the Constitution you really like but not those you find inconvienient. Any inherent authority people think he MIGHT have to protect the US would be under his commander in Chief role which is a MILITARY role, therefore by definition UNDER civilian rule in any domestic situation. NO WAY this argument flies
When the President is in trouble, help comes from everywhere. Without a doubt, C Mathews spoke up for his commander and chief, and in doing so, he lost a few more viewers who would beg for non bias programming from the so called bias left. The video's comment's speaks to how the Republicans coin the issues. With just a few facts, a snap shot poll, and a very clever and bias commentator, they can make any story seem true and factual. This is the bias we as Democrats will have to defeat in
When the President is in trouble, help comes from everywhere. Without a doubt, C Mathews spoke up for his commander and chief, and in doing so, he lost a few more viewers who would beg for non bias programming from the so called bias left. The video's comment's speaks to how the Republicans coin the issues. With just a few facts, a snap shot poll, and a very clever and bias commentator, they can make any story seem true and factual. This is the bias we as Democrats will have to defeat in 2008.