Over on his new space at WordPress, ThatGayConservative quotes a rather silly comment my state’s senior senator, a Democrat whom, until recently, I respected, made yesterday to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez in the NSA Surveillance hearing. In her remarks, Dianne Feinstein concluded the Attorney General was offering a “radical legal theory . . . that the president’s power to defend the nation is unchecked by law, that he acts alone and according to his own discretion, and that the Congress’ role, at best, is advisory.”
I just read the Attorney General’s statement and could find nothing which “compelled the conclusion” that the gentlelady from my adopted home state reached. ThatGayConservative contends Mrs. Feinstein’s statement suggests she finds the U.S. Constitution radical. He has a point. Article II vests executive Power in the President.
But, even if, as TGC — and others have suggested — the Constitution itself allows the president to act alone on matters of national security, the fact remains as the Attorney General spelled out yesterday in his remarks, that far from being “unchecked” by any law as Mrs Feinstein contends, the administration vetted this program to make sure it was legal:
The Department of Justice is not alone in concluding that the program is lawful. Career lawyers at NSA and its Inspector General office have been intimately involved in the oversight of the program. The lawyers have found the program to be lawful and reviewed its conduct. The Inspector General’s office has exercised vigorous reviews of the program to provide assurance that it is carried out within the terms of the President’s authorization.
With reference to a variety of judicial opinions, including one which reviewed the program in 2002, Gonzalez shows how it complies with federal law.
Despite the amount of case law the administration — and its defenders — have presented to demonstrate the program’s legality, the president’s critics have, by and large, ignored these arguments and rushed to the conclusion that the president has broken the law. MoveOn has released ads comparing President Bush to Nixon, ignoring the fact that the current president has been eavesdropping on international communications of suspected terrorists while the disgraced former president was spying on domestic communications of his political enemies. In today’s Best of the Web, James Taranto quotes an e-mail message from John Kerry’s campaign where the Massachusetts Senator accuses the administration of “denying the illegality of warrantless domestic spying.”
Denying the illegality? Interesting way to put it, John. I guess it is denying something’s illegality when you, with much evidence, affirm that something’s perfectly legal. Does that mean that when I note that the First Amendment allows me to say what I want on this blog that I’m “denying the illegality” of blogging? It’s not just here where Kerry twists his rhetoric. By calling the NSA program “domestic spying,” Kerry, other Bush critics and media outlets misrepresent its purpose as well as its scope.
Senator Feinstein’s comment, like that of her Massachusetts colleague, like the MoveOn ad, like so much of the Left’s rhetoric on the NSA surveillance program is not based on the actual facts of the case, but on the left’s insistence that President Bush is a horrible, no good, very bad man. The Nixon ad gives away their game. Deep down, many of them believe the current Republican president today is as corrupt as that dishonest one more than thirty years ago.
These angry opponents have yet to identify a single Bush lie, that is, a deliberate distortion of the facts to say something he knew to be false at the time he said it. Similarly, they have yet to show that the president knowingly broke the law in signing off on the NSA wiretapping program. It is of no consequence to them that both Cass Sunstein, one of the nation’s leading liberal constitutional scholars, and John Schmidt, Associate Attorney General in the Clinton Administration, find that the program passes legal muster. The president’s critics aren’t as concerned with the truth or the law as they are with tarring him as a dishonest law-breaker.
It is unfortunate that a heretofore honest and decent Senate liberal has had to lower herself to dishonest rhetoric in order to appease her party’s angry base. For that base isn’t interested in what kind of man President Bush is, but in presenting him as their stock image of a Republican, an image unchanged in their minds for over thirty years.
I think it’s time for them to move on.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
The Democrats dare not “move-on”, for the next step is to question who leaked to the NY Times. One likely-suspect in one of the very Senators that the Bush Administration briefed as part of the Congress’ oversight; Jay Rockefeller, Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee itself.
http://macsmind.blogspot.com/2006/01/rockefeller-did-you-teller.html
Congress “demands” to be told about classified operations, then it’s members “leak” to the Press…and to our enemies. And they complain when the Administration then says “we don’t trust you”, and “we would rather not say”?
#0 – A bunch of aging 1960s teenagers think every Republican is Nixon… because they want to; it feels good to them… because the Nixon era was their glory days (at least in their minds).
It\’s sad, because it means we\’re not coming together as a nation; since we can\’t even agree on the most basic facts of a situation.
I don\’t know what to do about it, except to keep asserting the truth as I know it, as little opportunities arise.
I know what they would like us all to do about it: namely, cave into their \”story\”, their worldview, regardless of what we know to be the real facts – thus enabling their return to power.
But that\’s unacceptable. For one thing, look what a mess they (i.e., Leftists / socialists / 60s retreads) make of the world, when and where they run it. For another thing: personally my first loyalty is to the facts.
Example: If the Constitution gives the President inherent authority to gather intelligence on what our enemies are up to – which it does – and if the Constitution really does not require a warrant for a silent intelligence-gathering operation to be \”reasonable\” within the 4th amendment – which is also true – then the NSA terrorist surveillance simply is constitutional, and I cannot get excited about a narrative that pretends otherwise, nor consent to it.
Sorry, libs!
You beat me to it, Calarato, except that I was going to say that that was the last time the liberals meant a damn to anyone in this country. How long has it been since they won an election with at least 50% of the vote?
If the liberals actually gave a damn about this issue and are not just campaigning for ’06, why is this on C-SPAN and not closed-door session?
As far as the leak goes, why it’s your patriotic duty to leak information that puts our national security at risk. I’m astounded that the left got all orgasmic over the supposed “leak” of Mrs. Wilson (whom everybody knew what she did), but they couldn’t give two shits about leaking information that puts our security at risk.
Don’t believe me? Just look at the way ABC-BS leaked the C.Y.A. memo directing agents to stop leaking to the media.
LIBERALS DON’T GIVE A FLYING DAMN ABOUT AMERICA.
Besides, I’m looking at Sen. “Leaky” Leahy. He did it before, he’d do it again.
P.S. As for Feinstein: I do not think she has succumbed to appeasement of her party’s base. I think, rather, that she has succumbed to groupthink. Years of hearing the same old crap from every staffer and every person (in her circle) at every party, then reading it the next day in The Nation and The New York Times, will eventually “get” a person.
O[ff] T[opic]:
I was thinking about a particularly room-temperature-IQ complaint our liberal friends may voice from time to time, namely their objection to use of the term “liberal” to describe them and/or their positions.
I seem to remember Stephen – back when I was bothering to read anything by him – once trying to re-contextualize it as a positive term; as, in his view, it meant “classical liberal” or defender of individual rights – what I am, in other words! (But he can’t admit that.)
But “classical liberal” is, of course, not the derivation / origin of the term “liberal” in American usage today.
The usage today has a totally different origin: it is a simple abbreviation of the phrase “liberal Democrat”. As distinct from, you know, “moderate Democrat” or “conservative Democrat”.
Thus, “liberal” in its sense of “out there” or “generous”, as a mere modifier of “Democrat”. A Democrat generous with government programs; generous with other people’s money; and out there on the Democratic Party’s fringe – or what used to be the fringe. 🙁
That’s what commentors here (that I have seen) mean by the term. And the meaning is obvious to anyone – except, of course, to a liberal – since liberals (as in liberal Democrats, again) hate the word and can’t afford to admit it’s what they are, lest they lose even more elections.
Peace out, libs! 🙂
#3 – In 1976, Carter got 50.1%. The last time before that was Johnson, 1964.
Bush, in winning 2004 with 51% (or 50.9 or whatever stat you go with), got a larger proportion of the popular vote than any Democrat for President in 40 years. That’s gotta hurt 🙂
Calarato, only 4 Democrats broke 50% of the popular vote in the last 150 years.
I dont’t have a problem with initiating this surveillance without warrants; when NSA’s trolling hits on a targeted conversation there isn’t always time to secure a warrant. But I am deeply troubled by the failure to get after-the-fact warrants within the 72 hours the law provides. I have yet to see a convincing explanation for that failure. And I’m not willing to accept Calarato’s opinion as the final authority on the constitutionality of the president’s power to order the warrantless intercepts. For every legal scholar who agrees with that interpretation there’s one who disagrees. The U. S. Supreme Court will decide who’s right and I’ll accept their decision.
And, Dan, I’m not so sure President Bush has never lied to the American people. However, I’ll give Bush the benefit of the doubt and accept that maybe he just didn’t understand the Medicare prescription program (which only became law after Tom DeLay jammed it through the House with unethical strongarm tactics) and didn’t intend to tell seniors untruths about it. I have a high IQ and am well-educated and I can’t figure out Medicare Part D. I’ve checked every plan available and have yet to find one that covers the few prescriptions I take, all of which are widely prescribed for high blood pressure and cholesterol. It’s amazing that the president could keep a straight face when he sold this bill of goods to the country.
“I am deeply troubled by the failure to get after-the-fact warrants within the 72 hours the law provides.”
Why is that deeply troubling to you? What difference does it make to you personally, in your day-to-day life?
I suppose FISA is “optional” if one is president? And the Fourth Amendment applicable to everyone but the Supreme Commander? Gitmo and Abu Graihb mere fancies of the immagination? Ditto, renditions to former Soviet gulags and non-democratic states? The numerous deaths of combatants under U.S. detention just incidental? Or Gonzales’ “legal” interpretation of the Geneva Convention, despite legal scholars massive objections, “mainstream?” Or, maybe a president who usurps the Constitution and federal laws as an “inconvenience” as his raison d’etre for his “lawless” handling of persona non grata is justifiable if he says so?
I thought “conservatives” believed in the laws of men, not the lawlessness of the man?
#9 Stephen: right, right, right. On the very day that Bobbie Kennedy’s illegal and improper wiretap and surveillance effort against one of America’s most decorated and acknowledged civil rights leader is again in the forefront because of JimminyCricketCarter’s statements… you can, with a str8 face, ask if WE believe in the laws of man?
Dude, either you can’t see the mirror you’re holding up to yourself or the kettle/pot is just too blackened and it obscures your judgment.
And we won’t even go to the obvious: Pres Clinton lying to grand juries, lying to his family, lying to his Cabinet, lying to the public… who exactly is charging that conservatives and this Prez think they’re above the law?
This is not about, and has never been about, “rights” or wiretapping or the law. This howling is about one thing: restoring the balance of power between the branches of government — specifically, restoring the power taken away from the executive brance in an attempt to make the legislative branch more powerful than the executive.
Executive power is, of course, fine when exercised by a Democrat. This is why the same liberals who are screaming about the NSA program defended warantless wiretaps when Clinton and Reno were doing it.
The United States is not a European parliamentary democracy. And liberals just can’t stand that.
And don’t forget…..those of us who disagree with the libs are not gay. Kevin says so. 🙂
Does Stephen ever respond to my posts or just find our comments section a convenient place to post his anti-Bush rants? Sounds like he’s having the kind of visions that Janet McGoldrick is having in San Francisco.
The number of Republicans in the House and Senate that have serious doubts about the legality of the FISA program is not insignificant.
But perhaps the question that needs to asked instead of whether the President has the “right” to wiretap, is do you trust your government with this power?
Do I trust the Government with Article 2 powers to conduct a just war against foreign enemies who want to kill me?
Absolutely. Gryph, what an inane question. Really. Come on. We know you can do better.
And P.S. – This just struck me:
The number of Republicans in the House and Senate that have serious doubts about the legality of the FISA program is not insignificant.
That’s right! It is entirely possible that the FISA law as such, and not the NSA program, is what is unconstitutional. (Re-read what you wrote. FISA’s unconstitutionality is what you are suggesting. And you didn’t mean to, but it’s a correct suggestion anyway.)
But perhaps the question that needs to asked instead of whether the President has the “right” to wiretap, is do you trust your government with this power?
Good point, Patrick, but my answer would be yes, if the alternative would be to entrust homeland security to the status quo, circa 9/10/01. Instead of attempting to thwart anything they disagree with, the left’s leaders may want to think about…I dunno…LAYING OUT A PLAN?!?!?
Let me just say this, okay? I fly alot, and when I say alot, I mean at LEAST four times a month. As a result, I am hyper-sensitive to those boarding the plane around me. As a queer Army vet (okay, I admit it, I’m a Bear), I wouldn’t hesitate for a second to stomp the shit outta someone, ANYONE, who took it upoon themselves to disrupt, IN ANY WAY, a flight I was on. Having said that, then, I am able to live my life in far more normal a fashion in the knowledge that my government is attuned to the communications of those who would happily destroy my pillow-biting ass!!! Besides, since this secret was illegally revealed by the Old Grey Bitch, it’s been a real pleasure to fy without having to constantly stress over the flatulent asshole across the aisle.
Eric in Hollywood
Thats not the question I asked, but I’ll answer the one you have proposed above. “Yes”, but that trust is not absolute. And in the absence of a “just war” I see no reason to grant them that power, that is so easily abused at all.
And yes, I did not mean to put “FISA” in my earlier post. It should have been “NSA”.
The difference between you and me Calarato , is that you are willing to sanction any move by Bush, since he is a Republican, in the name of your blind partisanship. By Bush’s definition of the “War on Terror”, the war began long before he came to office. So by your reasoning Clinton and Carter both would have had every right to unchecked domestic wiretapping. Its difficult to imagine you running around with the same zeal defending Clinton or Carter isn’t it?
You are willing to give up long-term freedoms in exchange for short-term goals. I’ve seen long examples of both GOP and Democratic Administrations ruling this country. The one thing that is consistent is the eventual corruption of power. Regardless of who is in office. You like to remember Reagan as a Saint and Carter as the Devil. I remember both as men. I have the same view of Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. And like all men they were and are fallible.
Every time one of these kind of issues come up, you should ask yourself: Is this something that will be good for the country 20, 50, 100, years from now? Is it based on universal principles or is it created just out of the needs of the moment? What are its side effects? Does it have a potential for abuse? Does it have a foreseeable sunset clause?
So if you want to call me a liberal loony, fine. But no, I’m not willing to grant the President the unlimited power to conduct domestic surveillance in a war without any end.
The “War on Terror” will continue long after Bush is gone. Are you going to trust President Hillary Clinton with the same powers you grant to this President? I suspect not.
And of course, the other major difference between Calarato and myself is that I’m so much better looking.
Matt, you don’t seem to know that FISA was enacted after Watergate.
All, you don’t seem to know that the SCOTUS has upheld every law against illegal wiretaps.
GPW: You’re back to your chorus. Unfortunately, this is not an Euripides play.
Gryph in #14, raising questions is not the same thing as accusing the president of breaking the law without addressing the arguments he raises in his defense.
Stephen in #19, huh?
Your endless repetitive comments never cease to amuse me and help prove, by your very words (in a comment to a past post), that I’m right.
#19
All, you don’t seem to know that the SCOTUS has upheld every law against illegal wiretaps.
Actually SCOTUS has upheld warrantless surveillance in the past and if brought to them yet again, I have no doubt that they would uphold it again. Much to the chagrin of posturing liberals.
Further, it’s interesting to note that many of the “legal scholars” who say this is illegal, are the same ones who, just a few years ago, upheld it and said it was the president’s duty to do so.
What’s the difference? One president had a “D” after his name and the other has an “R”.
The thing that is so insane about this whole Nixon thing is that Dick wasn’t even remotely a conservative — and neither is George W. Bush.
GPW: Are you actually engaged, or do you simply live by the mantras you repeat? If I am not responding to your comments, why do you endlessly respond to mine by singing the same chorus? Most of your fellow wingnuts already subscribe to your absurd positions — all five of them. Calarato, NDT, GayConservative, Patrick — have I missed one? So if I’m unresponsive, don’t “go there.” The other “queer” ones will go there for you. But, I suspect that I keep hitting an open nerve that has you repeating formulaic responses, because you can’t conceive of an actual answer. Maybe, just maybe, this portends that the whole of you will become engaged and see the vacuity of your comments and responses. That’s usually the sign of impending enlightenment. So, GPW, there’s still hope. After all, Paul had a conversion on his way to Damascus. But, then, I don’t believe in the tooth fairy or GWB. And, aparently you still do.
Um, Stephen, you just rant on and on and on and never bother to address the points I raise, so perhaps I should be asking if you’re the one who’s actually engaged.
I do have so much fun responding to your points and ask you a question similar to the one you ask me, why do you endlessly post to this blog?
I suspect that I keep hitting an open nerve that has you repeating formulaic responses, because you can’t conceive of an actual answer.
Holy crap!
“Repeating formulaic responsis”? Hell, Stephen, that’s all you’ve got! JEEZUS!
Come to think of it, that’s all any of today’s liberals have. Nothing new. Nothing to offer. No new plans. Just the same BS, different day. Hell, you can’t even think of a new verse to the same old worn out song. It’s just the same, worn out talking points after your 2000 failure.
Why don’t you spout it to somebody who gives a good damn like your DUmmy or KOSsack buddies who love the way you suck their cock?
Take a hint and MovOn, MorOn.
Indeed, Stephen. Quite trying to silence your opponents and leave if your that unhappy.
Why don’t you spout it to somebody who gives a good damn like your DUmmy or KOSsack buddies who love the way you suck their cock?
My word, TGC! And I thought I was being crude with the “pillow-bitting” remark!!! LOL 🙂
Nicely done, though!
Eric in Hollywood
I hate to demolish your fantasy, but Hitlery doesn’t have a chance at the White House.
#18 –
**The difference between you and me Calarato, is that you are willing to sanction any move by Bush, since he is a Republican, in the name of your blind partisanship.
Gryph, you have just shown ignorance and given evidence of judging commentors here on the basis of your own loony “fill in the blank” assumptions about them, as opposed to reality.
Regular readers here will vaguely recall (if not “know”) that:
– I am a registered Independent.
– I was a registered Democrat before that, for 15+ years.
– I have NEVER been a registered Republican.
– Voting for GWB in 2004 was my first, reluctant and ONLY vote for a Republican presidential candidate, ever.
– I routinely criticize Republicans.
– I bitterly criticize President Bush on some important topics.
So much, Gryph, for your ignorant, defensive assumptions.
After seeing you’re capable of going that far off base: should I even bother addressing your other points?
Out of generosity, I’ll still give it a shot, this once.
**By Bush’s definition of the “War on Terror”, the war began long before he came to office.
How do you get that?
The Islamo-fascist part of the War on Terror did begin long before Bush came to office; that’s quite true. It was a one-way war. Under Clinton, we slept. We only woke up and made it a 2-way war on Sept 11, 2001.
You can say “Under Bush’s definition it began long before” if, and only if, Bush’s actual definition would include the long stretch when we (the U.S.) were almost totally asleep and not fighting or involved (except as dumb targets).
**So by your reasoning Clinton and Carter both would have had every right to unchecked domestic wiretapping.
What a leap!!!
First, I don’t advocate “unchecked domestic wiretapping”. Gryph, what a bizarre (or shall I say ignorant) assumption on your part! Again, should I even bother responding to this kind of insane Straw Man stuff?
I advocate legitimate, war-related wiretapping, overseen by the Justice Department and Congress, with or without warrants as may be appropriate to the situation.
I am using each of those words exactly. The current NSA terrorist surveillance program is:
– legitimately war-related
– vetted by the Justice Department every 45 days
– vetted by top Congressional leaders of both parties, every few month (or about a dozen times in the last 4 years)
– frequently done with warrants
– sometimes, in the case of emergency surveillance of overseas terrorist calls into the U.S. that may not even fall under the complicated provisions of FISA, legitimately done without warrants
Clear?
Second: In point of fact, the Clinton Administration DID engage in largely unchecked domestic wiretapping. It was called ECHELON, or the 1996 Economic Espionage Act. OK? And I condemn it.
**Its difficult to imagine you running around with the same zeal defending Clinton or Carter isn’t it?
How’s that?
First of all, if Clinton had actually tried to fight the War on Terror, legitimately, instead of trying to cover up for Hillary or his own indiscretions… I would be thrilled!
Second, for years and years, I did defend Clinton, most specifically against the impeachment process when I was one of the early, paying members of MoveOn.org.
So much, again, for your ignorant assumptions. Gryph, you have made a fool of yourself here! I guess my earlier points really got to you, if they have made you THAT careless and unbalanced.
**You are willing to give up long-term freedoms in exchange for short-term goals…You like to remember Reagan as a Saint and Carter as the Devil.
And you would know that based on… your psychic powers???????
(Certainly not based on anything you’ve ever seen me say. Or, shall we say, not legitimately based.)
**…I’m not willing to grant the President the unlimited power to conduct domestic surveillance in a war without any end.
Then we agree on something, because I’m not either.
Now Grpyh, can we please discuss the actual NSA terrorist surveillance program, Grpyh, which, for starters, is in no way an “unlimited power to conduct domestic surveillance”?
Now Grpyh, can we please discuss the actual NSA terrorist surveillance program[?]
Ya see, Calarato, there’s your first mistake…asking Gryph a question that he has NO intention of answering honestly.
Eric in Hollyweird
#30 – I have seen Gryph be honest in the past, Eric. But only sometimes. And the plain insanity of his Straw Man here (“unlimited power to conduct domestic surveillance”) shows he has been driven to a dark place. So you are probably right 🙁
Checking in for a moment. Nothing from Gryph yet. A couple meta-points are coming to me:
1) In imagining the NSA terrorist surveillance program to be “unlimited… domestic surveillance”, Gryph demonstrates of GPW’s point: that everything and everyone is Nixon, to Bush’s angry opponents. (And I would add, to certain 1960s re-treads.)
2) Maybe it was inconceivable to Gryph that I could be a non-partisan who defended Clinton loudly and on principle in the 1990s, because so many who hang out on the Left today (i.e., people whom Gryph probably reads fairly often) are unprincipled, pure partisans?
Have to go now.
chirp chirp – – – chirp chirp – – –
I was thinking I should apologize for making snap judgments about Calarato without cause, and in fact for being catty in the first place, but after reading all the responses I have to say I don’t think there is anything particularly unreasonable about what I wrote. At least not anything that was worthy of such over-the-top responses.
So I don’t think this is as much about political disagreements as it is about the same tired old syndrome of message boards. Flame wars. Yawn. Fine.
So therefore:
Calarato and Eric, I have one thing to say. You are both absolute correct in everything that you have ever written on this blog. You “win”.
Congratulations. I’m not exactly sure of what you have won, but you are welcome to it.
Over the top how?
Specify, please.
I used each word in my response most exactly. Not about you per se, but about your extremely bad assumptions / behavior here.
And yes, of course I was offended.
To describe a legitimate and (formerly) productive terrorist surveillance program as “unlimited power to conduct domestic surveillance”, with all the malicious implications that entails, is offensive to values I hold dear. I reserve the right to meet it with appropriate correction in the future (as I’ve done here).
Change your approach and language, Gryph.
Now Grpyh, can we please discuss the actual NSA terrorist surveillance program[?]
He probably can not, and neither can you, since the details of the “actual program” have apparently not been made public. That was one of the points of Gonzalez’s testimony a few days ago, when he said he would not respond to hypotheticals regarding the program, when the administration had refused to release the details to the congress which might get the questions out of “hypothecals.”
The President’s Administration has released its legal arguments in support of its position. There is link to an analysis of it below. It certainly seems to me that Bush Administration believes and is openly arguing that it has the right to the “unlimited power to conduct domestic surveillance”.
http://www.intel-dump.com/archives/archive_2006_01_15-2006_01_21.shtml#1137809576