Bush's justification for domestic surveillance outside of FISA may set a dangerous precedent.
I'm frightened now. Fear is building in my bones. An internationally illegal war, torture, affronts on civil liberties via the Patriot Act, domestic failures on every front, tax cuts for the rich, children left behind, New Orleanians left behind, unchecked environmental destruction, investigations into administration officials - all of these failures will haunt the legacy of the Bush Administration. But nothing compares to George W. Bush's latest achievement. From the BBC:
"President Bush has revealed he authorised a US intelligence agency to eavesdrop within the United States without court approval."…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - neocondi
Great, let's all drop the scatter shot attacks and generalizations.
Why is Bush having the NSA tap phone calls to and from places like Afghanistan? (play Jeopardy music) C'man, when is the last time you called Kabul? And if so, would you really have a problem with your call being monitored?
If it were your job to protect American lives, what would you do? Bush is erring on the side of safety. These are legal gray areas, many scholars on both sides. Commander and Chief status usually prevails in times of war. This is mild. What can be more mild than monitoring phone calls from countries with terrorist ties?
Should he do absolutely nothing and what until we get jacked again?
27 - neocondi
Merry Christmas.
28 - Jackson
I'm glad we can be more civil. It is Christmas Eve, after all. Neocondi, there is nothing wrong with monitoring phone calls, as long as there is an oversight mechanism in place. That is what FISA is for. When the President skirts FISA, however, he is taking an extreme action with no legal precedent (the 'Use of Force' Act did not amend FISA) that sets a dangerous precedent for extending presidential authority into even more dangerous territory. If we just let this slide we will be challenged to accept even graver violations of civil liberties in the future. We must keep our country safe but must also remember just why we are protecting it and not sacrifice what is supposed to be great about our nation.
29 - Dave Nalle
Dave, I'm not going to address everything you've said, because I would like to begin discussing domestic surveillance and whether or not it is illegal, but I do need to address a few points.
I agree that domestic surveillance has to go through FISA. The problem here is that the cases we're discussing are NOT domestic surveillance except for a few possible mistakes where calls they monitored were believed to be international but were not. I'm not sure there's a disagreement of substance on this issue.
On New Orleans... the administration may be getting closer to being on track now, but in the days immediately following the disaster, when help was needed most, the administration failed the American people.
On the environment, I think Aaman and gonzo have got my back, but I also want to point out Bush withdrawing from Kyoto and his extreme push for oil drilling in Alaska.
Kyoto is a disaster and Bush never getting involved in the madness in the first place showed real backbone. As for oil drilling in Alaska, we've been over this before. It benefits the country, does no harm and is just a bogus red flag used by alarmists to stir up the radical left.
As for children left behind, how far removed are you from high school? Maybe you are fresh out of high school as I am, or maybe not. All I know is that understanding No Child Left Behind as a student or teacher (as many of my former teachers will attest), it is painfully apparent that, as a whole, the Act does more harm than good.
I have a kid in Junior High and I can see the impact of the program and while some of it is negative the teacher accountability elements are good. It's not the comprehensive solution public education needs, but until vouchers become more acceptable to the general population we'll have to do the best we can.
I'm sorry I'm not addressing everything you've said, I just am getting tired of discussing everything that my original article was not about. I really should have left out that first paragraph. I didn't anticipate everyone getting hung up on it.
Then you should avoid posting incendiary, partisan talking points issues.
Neocondi, I can't take you seriously. Sorry.
Sure, Clinton was a fuck-up on so many levels. I agree! His failures in Rwanda infuriate me. But how the hell does that justify what Bush has done? It doesn't! I want to talk about what the president is doing in 2005, not what the president did in 1995 (or whenever this supposed scandal happened).
Some people are concerned that people like you are protesting now when so little complaint came from the same quarters when the FBI was shooting babies in their mothers arms at Ruby Ridge or letting kids suffocate alive in Waco.
"Rich libs want guns banned but then we find their bodyguards carry them." I'm sorry. You are so right! I'll tell my bodygaurd to get rid of his gun. Then I can save money... out of my extravagant $800 per month I'll never have to buy ammo again! Come on, are you serious!?!
I believe he said 'rich libs'. If you make $800 a month you're not rich - but you might need a gun to defend yourself in the kind of neighborhood you're likely to live in.
And a joyous and blood-soaked yule to all, btw!
Dave
30 - Aaman
Yule Too
[Missing tag added to Mr Nalle's previous comment, not for the first time this week either! Darn Editors! Comments Editor]
31 - MDE
re: "Kyoto is a disaster"
Dave - from the far commie rightleft I agree with you...
consumers caused the problem and only a reduction in consumption will begin to solve it...of course, it's not clear how our economy will function without a growth priciple driving it
32 - Christopher Rose
DAVE: EVERYTHING in your comment #29 is opinions that you have stated many times and does nothing to move the debate along. The standard of your commentary is really decreasing these days, in MY opinion.
Once again you presume the high ground of knowledge without actually ever taking us there, preferring instead to pontificate from on high but not involving yourself in the actual debate.
I'm going to have to consider if the whole comment isn't merely an arrogant and dismissive reaction to someone's legitimate concerns.
In particular, your remarks in response to Mr Jackson's words on his desire to remain on the topic of President Bush's actions (the very subject of this article) is NOTHING BUT a personal attack. Please improve your commentary before I feel need to take advice on it.
Christmas spirit from Mr David "Humbug" Nalle seems a bitter brew indeed!
33 - Jackson
Dave, the surveillance that Bush has authorized without the FISA court is not simply international. They are calls from within the United States to international locations. One end of these calls that are being monitored without any oversight to speak of are within the United States. That is wrong, if not illegal. The FISA court was set up precisely to oversee such surveillance and there are avenues for immediate action also. Bush's authorization is unnecessary and is a dangerous step in a path toward utter tyranny. Hopefully, however, we won't get to that place. Also, as I've previously stated, there was no implication for Bush's actions in the use of force act.
Now on to the ugly stuff: i'm finished discussing kyoto, alaska drilling, no child left behind, etc. lets just agree to disagree. i really regret writing that first paragraph.
"Some people are concerned that people like you are protesting now when so little complaint came from the same quarters when the FBI was shooting babies in their mothers arms at Ruby Ridge or letting kids suffocate alive in Waco." This offends me, yes, but it isn't happening right now. Domestic surveillance without FISA approval is happening now. The Vietnam War was awful, but I'm not going to go out and protest it. I'd much rather protest against our current war. Likewise, I'd much rather discuss our government's shortcomings today, rather than it's shortcomings yesterday, unless they shine light on today's shortcomings, such as legal precedents.
"I believe he said 'rich libs'. If you make $800 a month you're not rich - but you might need a gun to defend yourself in the kind of neighborhood you're likely to live in." Neocondi was addressing the left-wing as a whole. He included that talking point under the "People have problems with the hypocrisy of the left:" heading. Therefore, I took offense to it. If there are such 'rich libs' who have gun-toting bodygaurds, they certainly don't compromise more than one percent of the entire left-wing. It's not fair, then, to smear members of the left-wing with that unfounded (show me evidence of such 'rich libs' with gun-toting bodygaurds) and misleading statement. And if there are such left-wing hypocrits that have gun-toting bodygaurds, I know would, as a left-leaning individual myself, dissaprove of such behavior. Unless of course, those 'rich libs' were members of Congress who required such protection for their safety. Whatever... this is wearing me out. I don't know why rich libs with guns is such a big issue anyway. Some social conservatives have probably visited prostitutes, but I'm not going to pretend like that is some huge offense to me, or pretend it is some sort of big issue. And Dave, please don't ridicule my income or the neighborhood I live in. I happen to share a very cute house in a decent neighborhood with four other people. Rent in Idaho is fairly cheap. I'd appreciate it if you didn't make such assumptions.
So, I invite anyone reading these comments to explain to me exactly how the use of force act or 2nd article of the constitution enables President Bush to engage in domestic surveillance without any oversight to speak of. I also would like some explanation as to why, even if legal loopholes are discovered- why FISA is insufficient. Also, even if we conclude that FISA is insufficient and there are some legal loopholes, isn't it dangerous and wrong to allow our government to engage in such activity without anything but their own self-restraint, or lack thereof? Shouldn't we formally amend FISA if we want to make it easier? Anyway, I hope we can continue the discussion from this point. Thanks.
34 - gonzo marx
and here's where Reality rears it's hoary head...
Mr Nalle sez...
*I agree that domestic surveillance has to go through FISA. The problem here is that the cases we're discussing are NOT domestic surveillance except for a few possible mistakes where calls they monitored were believed to be international but were not. I'm not sure there's a disagreement of substance on this issue.*
excuse me...but FIS stands for "Foreign Intelligence Security Act" ...now, note the word "foreign" here....it is the Law that is SUPPOSED to cover EXACTLY what we are talking about here... Domestic surveillance goes through the FBI
see the difference?
notice the baseline Fallacy/Distortion of reality here?
don't be fooled by the Apologists as they attempt to distract,distort,deny and destroy
they are just following the Rovian directives to carry out the NeoCon/PNAC agenda...and the "noble lie" of the Straussian Apostles remains anathema to American Principles
Happy Holly-Daze folks...
Excelsior!
35 - lumpy
gonzo. for someone who seems intent on turning every opposing argument into a straw man you're awfully quick with the 'disttact. distort and deny'. From what Ilve read mr. nalle is giving you honest straightforward answers. Maybe you should have the courtesy not to keep repeating your canned and meaningless mantra since it certainly doesn't apply to his comments.
36 - gonzo marx
well lumpy..i am glad you enjoyed the kool-aide
from where i sit, i am calling them as i see them...as is Mr Nalle...i give him some Respect because every once in a while he will admit that what he is doing is just defending the leader of his Part at times
my "mantra" if you will, serves as a simple reminder to examine whatever point i am rambling about for those particular instances..
to wit: in comment #29 Mr Nalle asserts that "domestic surveillance has to go through FISA"...in my comment #34 i point out this "distortion" and re-state relevant facts as well as my own editorializing of Opinion
that make it a bit more clear for you now?
as for you...one could say that your comment #35 was an attempt to "distract" from the Issues and possibly even an attempt to "destroy" lil ole me, at least impugn my reputation
i DO hope you are enjoying your Holly-Daze, and i will leave it for the gentle Readers to decide wherein the Truth resides
hope that helped
Excelsior!
37 - Dave Nalle
DAVE: EVERYTHING in your comment #29 is opinions that you have stated many times and does nothing to move the debate along. The standard of your commentary is really decreasing these days, in MY opinion.
My comment #29 restates facts, not opinions. Facts don't change. Opinions sometime do.
In particular, your remarks in response to Mr Jackson's words on his desire to remain on the topic of President Bush's actions (the very subject of this article) is NOTHING BUT a personal attack. Please improve your commentary before I feel need to take advice on it.
You've got a very strange idea of what is and is not a personal attack then. He made a very biased statement in the opening of this article which clearly put his ability to comment on the main topic in question. Pointing that out isn't a personal attack, it's a reasonable issue to raise. Had he not started off with a statement of obvious bias then his later argument would have been much easier to take seriously.
Dave
38 - MDE
(needless to say) IMO #32 is another example of editorial over reach -
39 - gonzo marx
..:::points up to Comment #34:::..
nuff said?
Excelsior!
40 - Dave Nalle
excuse me...but FIS stands for "Foreign Intelligence Security Act" ...now, note the word "foreign" here....it is the Law that is SUPPOSED to cover EXACTLY what we are talking about here... Domestic surveillance goes through the FBI
see the difference?
notice the baseline Fallacy/Distortion of reality here?
Yes I do, and it's your distortion of reality. Despite the name, FISA is most important in how it applies to domestic surveillance. What FISA means is that an instance of domestic surveillance is going to be treated as if it is foreign surveillance because those involved are being considered agents of a foreign country. Here's a quote from the NSA director explaining the role of FISA:
"Under FISA, NSA may only target communications of a U.S. person in the United States if a federal judge finds probable cause to believe that the U.S. person is an agent of a foreign power. Probable cause exists when facts and circumstances within the applicant's knowledge and of which he/she has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that the proposed target of the surveillance is an agent of a foreign power. Under the statute, a judge may determine a U.S. person to be an agent of a foreign power only if there is information to support a finding that the individual is a spy, terrorist, saboteur, or someone who aids or abets them."
As far as I can tell there are no restrictions on purely foreign surveillance at all, or on surveillance of foreigners within the US. The US Constitution obviously doesn't apply to telecommunications outside the US. The exception to this is if the targeted suspect outside the US is a US Citizen, in which case surveillance requires the approval of the Attorney General.
Traditionally the main restriction on surveillance has been that the NSA needs to get FBI permission for domestic surveillance and CIA approval for international surveillance. FISA was created for those cases where US citizens or residents are being treated as if they were foreign terrorists.
Dave
41 - Dave Nalle
don't be fooled by the Apologists as they attempt to distract,distort,deny and destroy
they are just following the Rovian directives to carry out the NeoCon/PNAC agenda...and the "noble lie" of the Straussian Apostles remains anathema to American Principles
By the way, when directed at me I consider statements like this to be a personal attack. Keep that in mind Christopher if you're going to be editing personal attacks as liberally as you suggest. This kind of comment is FAR more offensive than anything I've posted here.
Dave
42 - gonzo marx
oh Bog..i cannot believe this..
Mr Nalle quotes an unnamed NSA director on FISA and sez...
*"Under FISA, NSA may only target communications of a U.S. person in the United States if a federal judge finds probable cause to believe that the U.S. person is an agent of a foreign power.*
now..here is the fucking Funny
clue for ya Dave...the ENTIRE problem here is that the fucking Shrub did NOT bring ANY of this shit to ANY fucking Judge
got that? it's been around...one of the FISA judges resigned over it..it's kinda the point of the whole thing
no one has a problem with ANY kind of wiretap/surveilance etc when it goes thru channels...hell, according to the FISA statutes, you can set yer tap and take it up with the Judge in up to 72 hours
you KNOW that
so what point are you trying to make?
you appear to have just agreed that the actions in Question...taps withoput going to the FISA judges, are illegal, and that FISA is the applicable Law
at least if we read your Quoted stuff correctly
so you are Acknowledging that the Administration broke the law, and violated the Constitution?
Excelsior!
43 - gonzo marx
and as for #41...you will note that i specifically did NOT direct it against you personally...
i aimed it at a behavior, not an individual...true, i did quote you earlier...but i was careful
hope you had an enjoyable Day
Excelsior!
44 - Dave Nalle
Dave, the surveillance that Bush has authorized without the FISA court is not simply international. They are calls from within the United States to international locations. One end of these calls that are being monitored without any oversight to speak of are within the United States. That is wrong, if not illegal.
It may be wrong, but I don't see how it's illegal if the monitoring originates from the fact that the foreign participant in the conversation is a terrorist suspect.
The FISA court was set up precisely to oversee such surveillance and there are avenues for immediate action also. Bush's authorization is unnecessary and is a dangerous step in a path toward utter tyranny.
Rarely have I seen anything overblown to this extent. Yes, the procedure should be looked at and regularized, but it's hardly a step towards utter tyranny, though saying so is certainly utter hype.
So, I invite anyone reading these comments to explain to me exactly how the use of force act or 2nd article of the constitution enables President Bush to engage in domestic surveillance without any oversight to speak of. I also would like some explanation as to why, even if legal loopholes are discovered- why FISA is insufficient. Also, even if we conclude that FISA is insufficient and there are some legal loopholes, isn't it dangerous and wrong to allow our government to engage in such activity without anything but their own self-restraint, or lack thereof? Shouldn't we formally amend FISA if we want to make it easier? Anyway, I hope we can continue the discussion from this point. Thanks.
I don't think that even the administration is making the argument you're suggesting they are here. They have argued that the few purely domestic surveillances were accidental and that the rest were legitimately outside of the jurisdiction of FISA.
Dave
45 - gonzo marx
a very decent point here...
Mr Nalle sez...
*It may be wrong, but I don't see how it's illegal if the monitoring originates from the fact that the foreign participant in the conversation is a terrorist suspect.*
now, here we get to the crux of why Judicial Review is required for these types of things
it is NOT up to any single individual to determine who is, or is not a "suspect" whose Rights can be invaded in the name of further Investigation
the Accuser (of the alleged criminal/terrorist/spy/black hat) brings what they have to the Judge...it gets looked over under the light of applicable Law...and iof there is probable cause, or reasonable thought that it could lead to something (in the case of terrorism, etc) then it gets approval
hell, under FISA...you can go to the Judge for review up to 72 hours AFTER placing the tap...
so..i Ask again, what possible Reson could there be to bypass the Law?
i can think of no good reason...i have heard the excuse "well, they don't trust the judiciary"...to which i Respond that the FISA court is a very special set of Judges chosen for just this purpose...and that there has NEVER been any Incident to cast Doubt on the integrity of the FISA system
is it Thought that some arab terrorists have infiltrate the FISA court? or are they concerned it could just be some on the court would be opposed?
i refuse to speculate there, not enough is known, and i still can't read Minds...so i have to go by what we DO know
which is that the Administration appears to have violated the Law on this one
your mileage may vary
Excelsior!
46 - Dave Nalle
clue for ya Dave...the ENTIRE problem here is that the fucking Shrub did NOT bring ANY of this shit to ANY fucking Judge
Incorrect. He brought thousands of these cases to FISA. A few slipped through and didn't go through the whole process and those are the ones were arguing over.
got that? it's been around...one of the FISA judges resigned over it..it's kinda the point of the whole thing
The judge who resigned was an extremely partisan Clinton appointee by all accounts.
no one has a problem with ANY kind of wiretap/surveilance etc when it goes thru channels...hell, according to the FISA statutes, you can set yer tap and take it up with the Judge in up to 72 hours
you KNOW that
so what point are you trying to make?
That what Bush did right far outweighs what he did wrong in this case, and that a few isolated cases does not make a pattern or a conspiracy or some great constitutional crisis, hypemaster.
you appear to have just agreed that the actions in Question...taps withoput going to the FISA judges, are illegal, and that FISA is the applicable Law
If the taps involved US citizens on both ends inside the US then they're illegal. That trims them down to less than 30 by all accounts, and the administration claims those were done in error. Why not believe that? 30 errors out of almost 2000 wiretaps?
so you are Acknowledging that the Administration broke the law, and violated the Constitution?
I have yet to see details on the wiretaps so I'm reserving judgement. If they were, as I said earlier, two US citizens talking within the US then there's a problem. But why not accept that these were isolated errors?
Dave
47 - gonzo marx
Mr Nalle sez...
*That what Bush did right far outweighs what he did wrong in this case, and that a few isolated cases does not make a pattern or a conspiracy or some great constitutional crisis, hypemaster.*
if Due Process was violated purposely, than it far outweighs almost everything...Rule of Law and all that, Separation of Powers, 4th and 5th Amendments
call me strange, but those things are kind of Important...hypemaster that you call me
so i aks you , straight out...is it EVER ok to violate the Law just because the President says so?
Mr Nalle sez...
*But why not accept that these were isolated errors?*
because i don't trust the Government, and kind of like the whole Checks and Balances thing so i find any incidents that might fuck with my Rights objectionable and want to Question it, have it Investigated fully and then Prosecuted if warranted
hey..i thought that was a "conservative" or even "libertarian" Position??
Excelsior!
48 - neocondi
Those FISA judges wouldn't happen to be attorneys appointed by Clinton, would they? Those perfectly apolitical, Solomon-like FISA judges.
Just like Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Someone like Ginsberg would through out every application that was handed to her. If it was 72 hours later, she'd order the wire tap removed. Remember the 9-11 guy who we almost got but that judge said we couldn't look in his computer because it would violate his rights?!
When you say "I can't think of any possible reason to bypass the law..." it is an odd statement. It is really the exact opposite: It is so obvious that Bush is doing it for national security I can't imaging any other motive a person could conjure up.
What other motive could you conjure up? Getting his rocks off listening to people's internationally phone calls? What the hell do you think Bush is doing other than trying to avoid another terrorist catastrophe? And don't say he wants to be King George because we have term limits here, he's gone in a few years (unless you think he is going to pull a Julius Ceasar and cross the Rubicon with the Marines and declare himself supreme ruler for life).
49 - gonzo marx
neocondi sez...
*Those FISA judges wouldn't happen to be attorneys appointed by Clinton, would they?*
umm...don't know, they is a Secret
neocondi sez...
*Just like Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Someone like Ginsberg would through out every application that was handed to her. If it was 72 hours later, she'd order the wire tap removed.*
this littel bit of prose reveals both yoru Agenda/partisanship , as well as your ability as a fiction writer....sorry Cassandra...speculation in order to attempt a smear is fine for AM radio...but not required here
neocondi sez..
*Remember the 9-11 guy who we almost got but that judge said we couldn't look in his computer because it would violate his rights?!*
actually...no..link them if ya got them...in actuality...on Sept 13th that year, the FBI came to the Mall in South Portland, to the arcade i was a technician at...they had a lead that two of the hijackers had come into the mall, and used the LAN center i built in the arcade....we gave them full access just for the asking...i am Aware of no other computer related Incidents....but i do not claim Omniscience
neocondi sez...
*What other motive could you conjure up? *
well..i'm not concerned with conjuring Motive here..i AM concerned with the breaking of the Law by presidential fiat
i mean, why would Nixon tape his phone calls and have folks break into an office?
who cares, i just don't want the Law broken by ANY government official, and i sure as hell don't think ANY elected Representative or Government official should be allowed to violate the Constitution...simple enough?
Excelsior!
50 - neocondi
Let's get real for a minute. There are thousands upon thousands of laws. Many overlap, conflict, etc. There are so many laws, rulings, interpretations, etc. you could fill a room. No war has ever been fought following all laws to the letter.
FDR broke laws in war. Lincoln practically threw out the Constitution for a while. And these are known as our best Presidents EVER. During wars, laws get broken. Does anyone disagree with this? It's all a matter of degree. Laws are generally made for peacetime. When the laws about monitoring international calls were written, they did not envision 9-11. I am not convinced any law was broken in this instance, but I am sure the government has broken a few laws somewhere along the line during this massive world-wide war on Al-Queda and affiliated terror groups. The laws are supposed to be FOR us, not to shoot ourselves in the head.
This may not be politically correct, but let's get real. It's OK to go 75m.p.h. in a 65 zone. Especially if you are rushing to the emergency room (or in this case, at war). It's not OK to do 95. I think most people have an intuitive understanding of this. I think most people think it is bullshit when they get a ticket when they were going 67 in a 65 zone.
Remember the people jumping off the world trade center? The stewardesses stabbed on the planes? The beheadings and mutilations of our soldiers and civilians. This is war. There is no way our government and military can follow a hundred thousand laws to the letter. Not possible, even just from the human error aspect alone.
51 - gonzo marx
ok neocondi...we will get real...
how about we just stick to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...the 4th and 5th mendments in particualar are quite fun
or how about FISA itself, you know...that kookie Law that deals with these things
the rest of your commentary is mere hyperbole and vague insults...of course i "remember", so please spare me the bullshit
i understand you may not be familiar with me, or my particualr zany viewpoint...the Ends do NOT justify the Means for me, the Means are the End unto themselves
now, you do raise a decent point about suspension of some Rights during War time...and as soon as Congress Declares war, as per the Constitution and the War Powers Act...then we can talk, until then that excuse is just bullshit, both ethically and legally
your mileage may vary
Excelsior!
52 - neocondi
Here is the link about Zacarias Moussaoui. It wasn't a judge who refused a search warrant, but the FBI's own lawyers who refused to authorize it when asked if it were legal! This was based in part on a legal technicality having to do with the CIA and FBI sharing info. This guy had direct info on the 9-11 highjackers on his computer and had violated immigration laws and was doing weird things in "flight school." If the FBI's own lawyers would refuse to allow such a relatively minor search of a foreigh law breaker, why would FISA lawyers do the same?
I don't want a police state, trust me. But I don't want to get blown up either. We need a balance. I don't trust beaurocratic lawyers to run a war. I would rather have Congress be informed, and the Pres did that, but some asshole leaked it. Now the terrorists know they are being monitored. Great. I feel so much safer.
53 - neocondi
It doens't look like wars are offically declared wars anymore. But if it walks like a duck...
54 - RedTard
"how about we just stick to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...the 4th and 5th mendments in particualar are quite fun"
Great idea, now if you could just get your liberal compatriots in the judicial branch on board we would be fine. Until then you can take comfort in the fact that republicans have come around to the whole 'living document' theory.
Our nation's laws are designed to catch criminals after the fact. That presents an interesting problem in the modern world where a terrorist may not do anything wrong until the moment they kill thousands.
Think about the 9/11 hijackers for instance. Taking flying lessons and carrying a box cutter is not illegal. In fact, they didn't break any serious law until the plane was in the air and it was too late. I can't honestly fault the government for that.
We're back to the age old liberty for security question. Before you answer please spare me the lame old Ben Franklin quote. We trade liberty for security all the time. We lost our liberty to drive 105MPH through a school zone so that our children can be more secure crossing the street. We gave up the liberty to carry bazookas so we would not have to worry so much about being killed by one. The list goes on and on.
Either way I think we should end the program. Now that the classified details have been leaked its effectiveness has been greatly reduced. The terrorists will simply move to another 'protected' form of communication and the whole cycle will repeat itself.
55 - MDE
What is threatened here is not 'individual liberties' so much as the rule of law. Mr Bush was sweet talked by Straussian advisers - for whom 'anything goes' in a struggle for a noble cause - into acting outside established law. The use of ad hoc legal procedures is a defining hallmark of the Fascist State.
a question for you who poo-poo the acts:
What mechanisms exist in our bureaucracy to prevent a further slide into de facto (undeclared of course as we don't declare things any more) martial law? Do you believe that such a question is unreasonable...that it can't happen here? If so, why?
56 - gonzo marx
RedTard sez...
*now if you could just get your liberal compatriots in the judicial branch on board we would be fine.*
firstly...i'n not a "liberal"....nor a "conservative"..i deal with Issues..one at a time, not any political "gang"
as for getting the Judicial branch "on board", might i suggest you look as the FISA court's track record in these things since inception...over 2000 approvals, less than 10 rejected? again, what Reason for NOT following Due Process?
to neocondi, thank you for the Link: i think you and i are merely disagree on the details of the Searation of Powers...all part of Checks and Balances, to help preserve our Rights while dealing with whatever problems come the Nation's way....as for "quacks like a duck" i must respectfully disagree
you see..it was al Qaeda that attacked U.S., a bunch of Saudi's on those planes, run by bin Laden
so what the fuck does Iraq have to do with it? and we are drawing down troops in Afghanistan, why? and if bin Laden is the goal, none of these taps we know of so far are dealing with that problem?
so , i remain distrustful of Government in general, and this Administration in particualr...and desire them to follow the Rule of Law, so we do NOT become even more of a police state
and back to RedTard...i'll just stick with the Constitution and the Rule of Law...thanks
nuff said?
Excelsior!
57 - Dave Nalle
if Due Process was violated purposely, than it far outweighs almost everything...Rule of Law and all that, Separation of Powers, 4th and 5th Amendments
The catch here is the 'purposely' part there. I've yet to be convinced that there was any intention to violate anyone's rights just for convenience.
call me strange, but those things are kind of Important...hypemaster that you call me
so i aks you , straight out...is it EVER ok to violate the Law just because the President says so?
I don't think so, but there are others - including many in the Justice Department who disagree when it's an emergency situation. They make the argument that in an emergency the reason you have a chief executive is to make short term decisions which can be implemented immediately and dealt with later on a legal basis. That's the whole reason for the 72 hour delay on requiring FISA warrants.
Mr Nalle sez...
*But why not accept that these were isolated errors?*
because i don't trust the Government, and kind of like the whole Checks and Balances thing so i find any incidents that might fuck with my Rights objectionable and want to Question it, have it Investigated fully and then Prosecuted if warranted
hey..i thought that was a "conservative" or even "libertarian" Position??
No, it's a paranoid position. Libertarians don't hate government on principle, they just don't believe that it's the best institution to deal with most of society's needs.
Dave
58 - gonzo marx
ok...color me paranoid then...but i'm in good company, check how "paranoid" the Founders were with the Declaration and the Constitution...so much so that there was a nice big brawl over the Bill of Rights...you, as the historian, Mr Nalle, are well Aware of that....so i'll gladly stick in with that exalted company
Mr Nalle sez...
*I don't think so, but there are others - including many in the Justice Department who disagree when it's an emergency situation. They make the argument that in an emergency the reason you have a chief executive is to make short term decisions which can be implemented immediately and dealt with later on a legal basis. That's the whole reason for the 72 hour delay on requiring FISA warrants.*
and there is the Thing....the Administration did NOT follow the 72 hour rule, by all the accounts we have available so far...and THAT is what i, and others, are Objecting too
is that so difficult to accept and agree on without any partisan bullshit from either "side" ?
as for "those in the Justice Department" ...so far, all i have seen were things written by Gonzalez when he was WH council...for those unfamiliar, he wrote the guidelines on "torture" for the Administration, and is now Attorney General...also to note, the Justice Department falls under the WH...and is NOT a separate branch of Government involved in "checks and balances" like the Judiciary is
and there's the rub...the indications so far are that the Administration deliberately bypassed the Judiciary in a lot of this
time will tell more details, and i'm not quite ready to instigate the Jeffersonian Option against a police state...but it definately doesn't look good so far
Excelsior!
59 - Dave Nalle
ok...color me paranoid then...but i'm in good company, check how "paranoid" the Founders were with the Declaration and the Constitution...so much so that there was a nice big brawl over the Bill of Rights...you, as the historian, Mr Nalle, are well Aware of that....so i'll gladly stick in with that exalted company
The founders weren't just paranoid about government tyrrany, they also had a healthy fear of the people as well. They knew how easily the mob can become influenced by demagogues and by irrational fear, and they did what they could to check that tendancy as well.
and there is the Thing....the Administration did NOT follow the 72 hour rule, by all the accounts we have available so far...and THAT is what i, and others, are Objecting too
They followed the rule in almost 1800 cases and failed to do so in less than 30 by last reckoning. So that's about a 99% compliance rate. Looked at that way it sounds pretty good. For an ebay seller that would be a damned fine rating.
is that so difficult to accept and agree on without any partisan bullshit from either "side" ?
The partisan bullshit appears to be everywhere. But I'm not sure this is even a partisan issue. This is more a case of where you draw the line on what you consider a serious problem.
as for "those in the Justice Department" ...so far, all i have seen were things written by Gonzalez when he was WH council...for those unfamiliar, he wrote the guidelines on "torture" for the Administration, and is now Attorney General...also to note, the Justice Department falls under the WH...and is NOT a separate branch of Government involved in "checks and balances" like the Judiciary is
Which doesn't necessarily render their opinions incorrect. They're still lawyers and they still have to look for legal justifications and support for their opinions.
and there's the rub...the indications so far are that the Administration deliberately bypassed the Judiciary in a lot of this
And there's the problem in a nutshell - your use of the term 'a lot', when it's actually a tiny number of instances.
time will tell more details, and i'm not quite ready to instigate the Jeffersonian Option against a police state...but it definately doesn't look good so far
It only looks as bad as you choose to paint it.
Dave
60 - gonzo marx
Mr Nalle sez...
*They followed the rule in almost 1800 cases and failed to do so in less than 30 by last reckoning. So that's about a 99% compliance rate. Looked at that way it sounds pretty good. For an ebay seller that would be a damned fine rating.*
again, i'm just a silly gonzo...i hold the Federal Government and the White House to a MUCH higher standard than i do eBay...especially when it comes to my Rights
Mr Nalle sez...
*The partisan bullshit appears to be everywhere. But I'm not sure this is even a partisan issue. This is more a case of where you draw the line on what you consider a serious problem.*
and this i can about agree with...i just draw the Line at an Adminisrtation which violates the Law, fair enough?
Mr Nalle sez...
*It only looks as bad as you choose to paint it.*
no...it only is as bad as the Facts present themselves, and the Precedent being set by the Presidents own words on these matters are what really scares the shit out of me
your mileage may vary
Excelsior!
61 - Dave Nalle
I think your line is unrealistic, gonzo. The occasional misstep is inevitable from any administration. I prefer to reserve my concern for times when there's a clear, systematic and intentional pattern of violation. Every mistake isn't another Watergate, and the tendancy of some people to think that it is makes me very leery of making that same mistake. Some people are looking so desperately for another Watergate that it worries me.
Dave
62 - gonzo marx
Mr Nalle sez...
*I prefer to reserve my concern for times when there's a clear, systematic and intentional pattern of violation.*
and i think the Facts of the last few years have shown EXACTLY that clear Pattern
you do not
fair enough, i guess...as has been said
"Time wounds all heels"
i only hope that if more and more of this comes out, and the Facts show this clear Pattern...that reasonable people can stand united against the face of Tyranny
and i'll say to you now, if when all comes out...i am inCorrect, then i will gladly say so (as i have done in the past)...but do remember, i hold to the Standard set by the GOP in the 90's...a SINGLE willful violation of the Law constitutes grounds for Investigation, and Impeachment
fair enough?
Excelsior!
63 - MDE
re: "I've yet to be convinced that there was any intention to violate anyone's rights just for convenience."
I thought it was secrecy and fear of delay not mere convenience. Intention has been admitted already, hasn't it?
64 - Jackson
Sorry I've left the debate. It looks interesting, but I've been busy away from my computer. I just wanted to address this that Dave Nalle said: "Some people are looking so desperately for another Watergate that it worries me."
I am not looking for another Watergate. In fact, it is a national tragedy if such a scandal does arise. Why would I desire to see my government do such horrible things? I don't. But when the government does something that is at the very least questionable, they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. That is what these debates are for. We have to get to the bottom of this- there are legal and ethical questions here, no doubt. It is frankly irresponsible to let our government officials off the hook just because Watergate might have been worse. This matter requires suspicion and investigation. If it turns out laws were not broken and there was in fact adequate oversight of such procedures, then all the better for the country. If not, however, something must be done.
65 - Bliffle
"hell, under FISA...you can go to the Judge for review up to 72 hours AFTER placing the tap...
so..i Ask again, what possible Reson could there be to bypass the Law?"
I think the reason is to affront congress and the judiciary with an in-your-face demonstration that the Executive branch is supreme, and can do as it pleases. It's a putup-or-shutup moment for the two other branches of the federal gov.
Dick Cheney has been promoting the Strong Executive from the beginning.
66 - neocondi
"National tragedy" is a bit over the top even if it turns out that phone calls from Middle Eastern countries to the U.S. were unlawfully tapped in order to protect America. That's the whole maudlin Cindy Sheehan type schtick and it's getting old. (hysterically weeping) "Oh the humanity, THE HUMANITY!"
As for Bliffle's statement that it is as "affront to Congress", U.S. Senators were briefed on this practice. How is that a slap in the face to Congress? Only a small group were briefed, but the info still got leaked. If all members were let in on it it probably would have gotten leaked much sooner.
67 - Jackson
When I said 'national tragedy' I was referring to a theoretical scandal on par with Watergate, not the current domestic surveillance issue. I'm hoping it turns out that this domestic surveillance issue turns out alright, but from the looks of it, it isn't. Protecting America can easily turn into a national tragedy when we fuck with what we are protecting. Bypassing legitimate avenues for surveillance for no real reason (and don't tell me the reason is national security, because we can attain national security through FISA) sounds like it could very well shape up to be a national tragedy. The precedent this will set for further expansions of presidential powers at the cost of liberty is surely a national tragedy. If this turns out to be everything it seems it will be, then it will most certainly be a national tragedy.
68 - neocondi
Under "Commander in Chief" in the Constitution, I believe it says the President, not FISA. Two days ago no one heard of FISA now everyone's an expert. "Everything has to go through FISA". My ass.
But forget all that. Just go for impeachment already. Like Gonzo says, breaking one law is enough. Since you think the law is serious ("national tragedy" would imply that}, start getting a movement ready to impeach the President. Write your representatives. He either betrayed this country by breaking serious laws or he didn't. Put up or shut up. Anything less than advocating impeachment would not suffice. Frogmarch him out of there.
69 - gonzo marx
it was enough for your fellow travelers in the HOuse with Clinton, wasn't it neocondi?
and i at least want that full Investigation from a non-partisan source(not a Ken Starr style witchhunt that began as an investigation into an old land deal, and then spend over $47 million looking for ANYTHING)
seems more than fair, considering the Standard that has been set by the GOP
and the Reason most folks had not heard of FISA? ummm...cuz i twas SECRET, ya know...to prevent any problems with security....so why not work through it as the Law states?
nobody has Answered that one yet
Excelsior!
70 - Christopher Rose
It is always going to be impossible to please everybody in terms of what is or isn't acceptable within comments. On the one hand I have people like Mr MDE who think I overdo it, whilst on the other there are people like Mr Smith who feel "assaulted" by the line of debate taken.
My guidelines are the BlogCriticsOfficial Comments Policy plus advice, counsel and instruction from the big bosses.
So long as Messrs Olsen, Winn, Berlin and Lyndell, plus the broader editorial group, are content to let me carry on, I shall continue to apply the guidelines as best I can, always trying to take into consideration the context of the particular article, the characters taking part in the commentary in addition to the guidelines and ignoring other issues.
It's probably impossible for anyone to get it right all the time but I believe I'm keeping us all just this side of outright brawling, whilst allowing righteous passion and healthy debate to have its way.
To close the debate and return this commentary to the original theme of the recent surveillance developments within the USA, any further arguments about the comments editing here will simply be deleted. Sorry in advance if that seems high-handed.
71 - gonzo marx
the Washington Post has a good Article on this topic today...
read it here...
nuff said?
Excelsior!
72 - tommyd
The Bush Regime is really the first in US history who were able to convince large portions of the dumbed-down American population to believe in, and fight and die for, the following slogans:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Considering the Bush Regime was able to pull this off on an American populace, heavily distracted by 'bread and circuses', was indeed a feat of magnificent proportions. The Bush Regime's propaganda and surveillance skills surpass by far even those of the Soviet Union. The average Soviet never misbelieved that he was actually a free man.
Orwell must be smiling down from heaven. He was only off by about 16-18 years from his '1984' prediction.
73 - lumpy
I bet tommyd can bench press cars based on his last post.
Neocondi has a hell of a point though. Let's start impeachment hearings on Bush now and get it overwith and let the democrats have the same kind of meaningless show trial th republicans had with Clinton. Maybe then Bush can get down to work and cut taxes some more.
74 - zingzing
oh yeah, cutting taxes is all a president needs to do to make most of america vote for him. he's the is the most powerful man on the planet and you want him to save you $100 a year... maybe lumpy was being sarcastic... i dunno. but bush doesn't need to save me $100/yr and he doesn't need to save the planet.
75 - lumpy
What can Bush do which will bring more benefit to Americans than put more money in their pockets and at the same time grow the economy, create jobs and encourage infestment? What more could we ask of him? It's a winning domestic agenda all in one neat little package.