USA isn't a police state - so its a lot of huffing and puffing by the anti-Bush media. Suprisingly, if Bush truly did listen in on the media and everybody else, don't you think people like Bill Keller might have disappeared a long time ago? Locked up in a cell, like those "free" Cuban journalists do?

I can only care about freedom, if I am not blown up, so to me its an obvious choice.

"...its a lot of huffing and puffing by the anti-Bush media."

Strawman.

Such frivolous practices were part of the former Soviet Union.

Bullshit. I lived in the former soviet union. Their constitution was essentially suspended, and even as written it had none of the basic protections which ours does. Their policies were the product of the whims of their internal security bureaucracy which persecuted groups and activities for no good reason just because they could.

What Bush has done since 9/11 is to systematically and openly act on the basis that he will do what he feels needs to be done without regard to law or the constitution and then leave it to the courts and the legislators to clean up in his wake. It seems like a threat, but it is not. He hasn't attacked the constitution, he's ignored it. Nothing he's done was ever codified as law, no part of the constitution was ever set aside. He just left it to others to draw the line on how far he could go and how long they'd let him get away with the things he felt he needed to do. Other presidents - especially FDR - have done exactly the same thing with aggressive exercise of executive authority in a time of crisis.

Name one thing Bush has done which cannot be ended or wiped away completely by a court ruling or a simple act of congress if they choose to step in as they did in this case?

Dave

#3 sez...
*Name one thing Bush has done which cannot be ended or wiped away completely by a court ruling or a simple act of congress if they choose to step in as they did in this case?*


ummm...GITMO and anythign we don't know about...

in comment #3 we also see...
*What Bush has done since 9/11 is to systematically and openly act on the basis that he will do what he feels needs to be done without regard to law or the constitution and then leave it to the courts and the legislators to clean up in his wake.*

i woudol argue with the "openly" part... much of what he has doen was buried under secrecy, which was even used in a futile attempt in the case under discussion as shown in the Judges ruling where she specifically addresses that

also note that the quoted statement acknowledges intentional breaking of federal laws...including violating things like the 4th amendment to the Constitution...

then #3 sez...
*He hasn't attacked the constitution, he's ignored it.*

a non-sequitor that attempts to state that ignoring a Law , or an Oath of Office, is not "attacking" the same...

that is fallacious "logic" at it's finest...

just some Thoughts

(side note: yaaaay, me! here i had called the Ruling from this judge within 24 hours of the story breaking about the bypassing of FISA)

Excelsior?

Excelsior, indeed, Gonzo.

"He hasn't attacked the constitution, he's ignored it."

Not exactly. It's been his strategy (or actually the strategy of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others) to specifically try to increase the power of the president. These former Nixon guys believe that the president's powers have been weakened too much in the post-Watergate era and have specifically and strategically set out to grab more power for the Chief Executive.

So he hasn't ignored the Constitution. He's deliberately chosen areas of the Constitution and U.S. law to challenge. It's proactive and planned, not haphazard and simply a result of 9/11.

Certainly the idea of maximizing executive power is not new, but it's also not a violation of the Constitution. The constitution allows for a strong executive if the other branches of government choose to allow it. Bush, like Nixon, just tried to push that concept as far as he coudl get away with. To the extent that he gets away with it he doesn't weaken the Constitution, just the other two branches of government.

And gonzo and I are going to have to agree to disagree since he can't tell the difference between attacking the Constitution and challenging it or between ignoring or violating a law and perverting or changing that law.

Dave

so where is the Line drawn?

if we are a Nation defined by the Rule of Law, isn't it not only the ethical, but the Constitutional responsibility of our elected officials to nto only enforce and uphold those Laws, but to actually obey them as well?

i have no problem with pushing the envelope, i DO have severe problems with violating the Law and then trying to weasel out of it until they get caught

so yes, we will have to agree to disagree, however i leave it as an excercise of Objective Reasoning which is the correct course of action

holding those we elect Responsible to the Rule of Law, or letting them get away with anything they can until they get caught

silly of me, i know.. but it does appear to be just that simple

Excelsior?

To the extent that he gets away with it he doesn't weaken the Constitution, just the other two branches of government.

And therefore the system of checks and balances.

Plus, when he waters down the protections in the Bill of Rights, as he's trying to do with the warantless surveillance, he's weakening part of the Constitution, the one that specifically protects U.S. citizens from our government. The other branches of government are not affected as much as U.S. citizens are.

so where is the Line drawn?

That's the quesiton. By drawing the line where he has chosen to, Bush has challenged the other branches to move it.

if we are a Nation defined by the Rule of Law, isn't it not only the ethical, but the Constitutional responsibility of our elected officials to nto only enforce and uphold those Laws, but to actually obey them as well?

Certainly up to a point, but where there is ambiguity or they see an overriding need to act contrary to the law there may be exceptions. And when those exceptions exceed what's justified by expediency then the other branches are there to slap them down and curb the excess. Obedience to the law is NOT the only obligation of the executive. He may have sworn an oath to protect the Constitution, but he was also elected by the people, and when a lesser law and the welfare of the people are at odds in his view, there's some latitude for initiative within the constraints of his interpretation of the Constitution up to the point where someone with authority to do so - like a court - tells him that interpretation of the constitution is incorrect.

Dave

for #9...

some serious sophistry there to try and shore up the apologia

let's just look at the blatant logical flaws..

i ask if we are a Nation with a Rule of Law... the response is...
*Certainly up to a point, but where there is ambiguity or they see an overriding need to act contrary to the law there may be exceptions.*

and right there you contradict yourself... this is like "being a little bit pregnant"...

either the Society follows the Rule of Law, or it doesn't.. there is NO sometimes or exceptions, but very definition

as for the "lesser Law".. we ARE talking about the 4th Amendment to the Constitution here.. this is NOTY some kind of traffic ticket "lesser law"

but instead is a clear violation of the Constitution, as well as the federal FISA law and a beach of the POTUS' very Oath of Office both literally and legally

i am simply amazed that you can even rationalize this egregious violation to yourself

and if you check your Constitution, it is NOT up to the Executive to interpert the Constitution, it is up to the Supreme Court... just liek it is not up to the Excecutive or Judicial to make Law, merely interpert it in a Constitutional context

checks and balances, added to the Rule of Law

ANY time that ANY american breaks it, they should be tried fairly and punished or acquitted accordingly...

NO ONE is above the Law

especially elected officials, no matter what office they hold

nuff said...

Excelsior?

gonzo, I never said the 4th amendment is 'lesser law', obviously. Clearly lesser law is things like the entire FISA court system which is NOT part of the constitution, and is certainly as lesser as law can get. If you want to be a strict interpreter then the mere existence of FISA is a violation of the constitution and the whole system ought to be struck down.

Dave

now, i woudl like to hear your reasoning behind the constitutional status of FISA

so you consider a duly passed Federal Law concerning how our government deals with foreign intelligence surveilance to be "lesser"?

wow... if federal laws like that are "lesser" i'd hate to see the ones you refer to as frivolous... perjury perhaps?

kidding there...

the point which your comment #11 tries to obfuscate is that this Judge has ruled that you need a warrant... something CLEARLY established via the 4th amendment

we agree there, yes?

then how can you even attempt to deny the seriousness of the President authorizing something SPECIFICALLY designed to ignore said 4th amendment and not even following the "lesser law" of the FISA provisions which are MUCH more lenient than normal law enforcement procedures?
(example: you just have to show suspicion for FISA, where probable cause is the standard for a purely domestic law enforcement wire tap)

THAT is what astounds me, that even someone as partisan as you are can so casually toss aside not only any semblance of "conservative" concerns on this Issue, but the pure libertarian violation of the 4th amendment...

to not only condone this travesty, but to actually try and defend it strikes me as somethign that comes from cynical partisan spinmeistering rather than your normally more objective and clear eyed thought processes

i dunno... mebbe i'm missing something

but it looks pretty clear cut to me

Bush has admitted it all publicly (after he got caught) and after his words today, is just about defying anyone or anything to stop him from continuing to break the Law and violate the Constitution

as for as "lesser as law can get" , you are being disingenuous there...

how about, jaywalking, parking, cleaning up your dog poo... things like that...

i would think those are MUCH "lesser" laws than one intended to provide a check and balance for foreign intelligence surveilance.. and you know it

so much for the cheezy attempt to denigrate a legally instituted federal law that covers and was created to prevent EXACTLY what this President has admitted to doing

fuck ANY elected official who thinks they are above the Law

Excelsior?

now, i woudl like to hear your reasoning behind the constitutional status of FISA

FISA is a secret court, which is clearly a violation of the 6th Amendment, and it issues warrants without meeting the criteria laid out in the 4th Amendment as well.

so you consider a duly passed Federal Law concerning how our government deals with foreign intelligence surveilance to be "lesser"?

In comparison to the Constitution? Of course.

the point which your comment #11 tries to obfuscate is that this Judge has ruled that you need a warrant... something CLEARLY established via the 4th amendment

we agree there, yes?

To be accurate, the 4th Amendment doesn't say one word about telecommunications, so there's a basis for an argument against this position.

then how can you even attempt to deny the seriousness of the President authorizing something SPECIFICALLY designed to ignore said 4th amendment and not even following the "lesser law" of the FISA provisions which are MUCH more lenient than normal law enforcement procedures?
(example: you just have to show suspicion for FISA, where probable cause is the standard for a purely domestic law enforcement wire tap)

Which is why the FISA courts are clearly illegal.

Look, the argument is simple.

The FISA courts are unconstitutional because they violate the 4th and 6th Amendments.

The 4th Amendment is not specific about protecting communications outside of documents in the direct possession of the citizen, so an argument can be made that a warrant isn't required.

THAT is what astounds me, that even someone as partisan as you are can so casually toss aside not only any semblance of "conservative" concerns on this Issue, but the pure libertarian violation of the 4th amendment...

What astounds me is that you can't tell the difference between partisanship and merely explaining the facts of the situation and the argument which can be made on the side you seem incapable of understanding.

I support this court ruling. And I think it should immediately be followed by one striking down the FISA court alltogether. Then we need a supreme court ruling on whether telecommunications are protected by the 4th Amendment - and I think that they should be. Once we have that, the ambiguity is cleared up and there's no possibility of further attempts to game the law.

to not only condone this travesty, but to actually try and defend it strikes me as somethign that comes from cynical partisan spinmeistering rather than your normally more objective and clear eyed thought processes

i dunno... mebbe i'm missing something

Quite clearly more than one thing.

but it looks pretty clear cut to me

Perhaps, but you aren't actually directly involved. You have the luxury to just take a stand on principle without considering any practical issues.

Bush has admitted it all publicly (after he got caught) and after his words today, is just about defying anyone or anything to stop him from continuing to break the Law and violate the Constitution

Except that if you take him at his word, and as you will see in the forthcoming arguments as this case gets appealed, Bush doesn't think he's violating the Constitution on both the grounds of ambiguity and executive privelege.

Dave

Dave sez...
*Perhaps, but you aren't actually directly involved. You have the luxury to just take a stand on principle without considering any practical issues.*

well now, i think i AM taking "practical issues" into consideration... such as recognizing FISA as a legally constructed set of Laws which covers the unusual circumstance of foreign surveilance which includes telecommunications...

it gives the needed tools for security purposes, with a system of clearly defined checks and balances to ensure proper protection of individual Rights

and thus why the crux of your entire arguments justifications is rendered moot in my own view, due to the actual facts at hand

that being said, i wouldn't mind the Constitutionality of it being tested in front of SCOTUS, but by virtue of general case Law telecommunications have already been shown to have 4th amendment protection

thus rendering much of the rest moot as well

Excelsior?

If Bush thinks he is legally justified in "ignoring" the 4th, then he is attacking it.

If he bypassed it temporarily with the intent of protecting national security and then recognized that there was no legal basis for doing so, that would be ignoring it. When he ignores it AND provides a legal defense for ignoring it, he is attacking it by reducing it from the law of the land to a lesser law subject to executive discretion. Sure he can ignore it if he wants to, but when he ignores it, it is the responsibility of the citizens, the legislative and the judicial branch to slap him back in his place. There is no legal justification for violating the 4th. Any defense of his authorization is an attack on the 4th.

Exceptions to the 4th made by the executive branch can only be made at the discretion of the legislative and judicial branch, not by the secret (it was kept secret for 5 years) discretion of the executive branch itself.

Ah, but PETI, he's not bypassing the 4th Amendment as he sees it, just bypassing the FISA court and the law which established it. He's still got his argument that wiretaps aren't covered by the 4th Amendment and that the FISA law is too vague and inapplicable to the specific kind of wiretapping and/or datamining involved here.

Certainly if you read the letter of the 4th Amendment none of the rights specifically enumerated there are being violated by a wiretap. That extension only exists because of later federal legislation interpreting the Amendment that way, and if Bush can make a claim that he rejects all of that legislation as unconstitutional, then he's at least got a leg to stand on. At least he does up to the point that the Supreme Court rules on it.

Dave

Thank you: "Get a freaking warrant."

This administration has absolutley no respect for the Judiciary; therefore, I'm not surprised they flat refuse. Their refusal is damn illegal, but it's not surprising.

Your argument makes sense Dave, except the Supreme Court has already ruled on the interpretation of the 4th and whether it should include phone conversation.

Justice Powell in Supreme COurt Case Keith ruled a search "should represent...the judgement of the magistrate that the collected evidence is sufficient to justify invasion of a citizen's private premises or conversation," clearly broadening the 4th to cover the possibility of recording conversation not present in the 18th century.

Furthermore just because the private conversation of U.S. citizens in a private residence transits electronic lines (much like mail transits the country) to another phone does not open it to government surveillance. It is clearly established by several supreme court rulings private conversation within the home is protected by the 4th and this is why it is illegal to bug a house without a warrant. The transfer of this private conversation outside the house into electronic lines, like mail, does not change its protected status.

Bush's violation of FISA (as you acknowledge) also violates current interpretation of the 4th, as you state in #16.

And Bush disagrees with that intepretation. Hell, I disagree with the current interpretation, though in the opposite direction.

The transfer of this private conversation outside the house into electronic lines, like mail, does not change its protected status.

Then the fact that the communication goes overseas shouldn't change its protected status either and the FISA court should be declared unsonstitutional.

Dave

Bush is not entitled to act contrary to the Supreme Court's well established interpretatin of the 4th.

As I pointed out not only has he ignored the 4th temporarily (as you said), he has ignored it, was told not to ignore it, is ignoring it, and is mounting a legal defense to continue to ignore it. That ammounts to an attack on the 4th.

Also, my #18 was only meant to point out the fallacy in your #16 that

"Certainly if you read the letter of the 4th Amendment none of the rights specifically enumerated there are being violated by a wiretap. That extension only exists because of later federal legislation interpreting the Amendment that way,"

Not only is the 4th extended by legislation but also by Supreme Court interpretation declaring conversations protected by the 4th, requiring a warrant to record them.

And you dont "disagree with the current interpretation," of the 4th. As far as I can tell, not only do you (and I) not differentiate between domestic and international calls by American citizens, but the Supreme Court doesnt either. Only FISA does.