Bush: Black Is White

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

100meters,

I haven’t heard or read Gore’s speech, but here’s Jonah Goldberg’s (yes, I know he is a conservative - maybe even a neo-con… all very scary) take on it from a few minutes ago:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_01_15_corner-archive.asp#087822

GORE’ SPEECH & THE LEFT [Jonah Goldberg]

I’ve been fighting an awful cold, so I got to read Gore’s speech only yesterday. I really don’t understand why everyone is taking it so seriously. Yes, it has some legitimate criticisms in there. But they are so mixed together with historical and analytical nonsense, one has to do some serious cherry-picking to declare it a “serious” speech.

For example, he says: “For one thing, we have for decades been witnessing the slow and steady accumulation of presidential power.”

Which decades? Most studies of the presidency I know about say it reached the highwater mark of power under Nixon or FDR. But certainly since Nixon and the Congressional watergate babies, the Presidency’s power has been dilluted not increased. And even some recent reforms go nowhere near restoring the sort of power it had in, say, 1972. And last I checked Gore & Co. didn’t consider FDR or LBJ tyrants.

At least one novel expansion of presidential power was invented by Bill Clinton who claimed that his secreat Service Agents were in fact a Praetorian Guard who could witness crimes without being forced to testify. But, over all, Clinton caved to Congress and the courts on all sorts of issues of presidential authority.

Gore does inoculate himself by noting – with varying degrees of honesty – that Presidents Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon et al violated civil rights far more than Bush has. But he does nothing with this analysis, save to say that Bush is worse because…of something or other.

One fair, but hardly new or overpowering, point is that because the war on terror is more open-ended than a traditional war, the once-temporary violations of liberty we experience during war might become permanent. I agree with the sentiment – when soberly presented – and think we should try wherever we can to lay down some new rules.

There are, of course, some real problems with the more hysterical version of this objection. For starters, Bush is only going to be president for two more years. Presumably, elections can deal with the issue. Right? But if you listen to Gore & Co. you’d think we’re on the brink of 1,000 years of darkness. Also, the politics of the last few years suggest the slippery slope is angled in the opposite direction the left thinks it is. The Patriot Act is hard to keep afloat politically – which is outrageous and childish, if you ask me. All these lefties in my email box whining about leaving America’s police state, should at least know that most of “enlightened” Western Europe have laws far more severe than the Patriot Act on the books.

Also, the Supreme Court hasn’t looked at the NSA wiretapping issue yet. It may simply – as it did with Lincoln’s habeus corpus suspension or Truman’s steel mill seizure – rule it unconstitutional. My guess is it won’t. But the idea there is no check on the executive simply isn’t true, at least not in this case.

But the left doesn’t think this is an issue for the Supreme Court. It’s drooling about impeachment, independent counsels and criminal proceedings. That’s Gore’s real agenda, and transparently and proudly so. We aren’t hearing Gore and the Democrats talking about amending the FISA law or fixing whatever it is they think is broken. Their fixes are partisan: to – once again – criminalize policy differences and constitutional issues. That approach may work politically, but it that doesn’t mean it’s serious.

22

JeffR,
Thanks for the response. I did read your link…ok, about half of it. This is a really complicated issue to follow - I have read articles arguing both sides, with each citing precedents. I heard joe Klein, who favors the program, explain that the NSA program was set up to track all of the contacts that a suspected terrorist made, and all of the contacts that that person made (phone, electronic, etc.).

An algorithm was then utilized to sort out the “hot spots” from the irrelevant calls (Pizza Hut, etc). This was illegal under the antiquated FISA laws, which were not equipped to deal with modern technology. Rather than seeking a change in the law, the administration ignored it. When they rooted all of the useless contacts out, they monitored the “hot spots”, without getting a warrant to do so. This was also illegal.

My understanding is that obtaining the warrants would have been easy to do. I am not sure whether changing the law would have. My objection to this seeming extension of executive power is the potential for abuse - I am really getting sick of political scandals and the ensuing spin games. For someone like Karl Rove and other disciples of the Leo Strauss, “ends justify the means” philosophy, this would be a hard tool to resist abusing.

For Democrats…well, they would probably just spy on each other and get caught. I also object to the lazy, arrogant manner in which the administration has characteristically proceeded. It sounds like they could have conducted a legit program, without skirting the law, but arrogantly felt above the law.

If anyone can correct me on this issue, please do, as it is certainly complex.

23

[quote]JeffR wrote:

“Wow. Where to begin.
The NSA program is NOT transparent (is this obvious or what). The president doesn’t have authority to review or authorize the “taps” in the first place.
See FISA.”

I disagree with you. Here is a nice summary.

“powerlineblog.com/archives/012631.php”

I know you won’t read it. However, I just wanted to let you know that relying on the nyt for your information is dangerously narrow.

[/quote]
By definition the program is not transparent. There is no review. There is no independent oversight. That’s what FISA is for.

You said:
“The Attorney General was intimately involved”

The attny. gen. at the time was not.
You made this up. Even Gonzales wouldn’t admit to this on Hannity the other night.

HANNITY: OK. So did you play any role in the specific recommendation of the president? You keep saying here that many people looked into it, the Department of Justice looked into it. Did you specifically play a role in determining the legality of this?

GONZALES: The primary responsibility to provide advice to the executive branch, with respect to legality on a particular activity, relies within the Department of Justice and the Office of Legal Counsel. And as the counselor to the president, I played a role in a wide variety of issues and provided counsel and advice with respect to a wide variety of issues.

But at the end of the day, the responsibility to determine for the executive branch what is lawful, what is not lawful, lies within the Department of Justice.

HANNITY: All right. But you ? so there was no specific recommendation for you as to the legality of this before they began the practice?

GONZALES: Sean, I’m not going to get into a discussion about what I may have recommended to the president or not recommended to the president.

“Intimately.”? Please.

Whatever.

The president doesn’t have the authority to do so. You’ve basically said he’s committed a felony 30 times.

Whatever. Fake, lame talking point.

Your link doesn’t work.

Mod Note: The link works, it may have been just the time you tried it.

But as it is reported, congressmen did not recieve written reports as required by the National Security Act. Members of both parties who were briefed say their objections were ignored, nor could they be vocalized, because of classification.
So full of it, I’ll take to mean the truth. Thanks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics/21intel.html?ei=5090&en=ecb69f142833723e&ex=1292821200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

This is too dumb to respond to.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17spy.html?ei=5094&en=998d7190aee080f7&hp=&ex=1137560400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all

Note: any inter agency differences should be taken with a large grain of salt, still…

None of your links work, but I found all but the cnn.

24

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:

No. Firstly, THE argument is the illegality of the president’s actions. That is the argument.(Everything after is a diversion).

In that case, this whole thread, started by you, is a diversion, because that wasn’t the point of the statements you’re quoting.
[/quote]
Oy. You said:
“Firstly, on inherent authority – the argument is whether the President has inherent authority.”

THIS IS A FAKE ARGUMENT. The issue is not does he have inherent authority to authorize surveillance minus a warrant, the issue is can the president override legal statutes that regulate what the president can do. Nothing presented by the admin/you says that he can. The whole inherent authority issues is for clouding puposes only.

It is working on you. Gore questioned the president’s claim (rightly). Scotty/Gonzales cloud the issue saying Clinton claimed inherent authority, which he had, prior to congressional regulation, and which he never claimed again afterwards. In short, the president has authority except where regulated by federal statute. Bush is claiming authority inspite of clear statutes saying otherwise. Thus there is no “hypocrisy” except for Bush Co.'s usage of it.

He has authority, unless dictated by statute!

It’s not hard to say. Gonzales said it!

For me? You aren’t getting the fundamental aspect that president can’t do what congress has said can’t be done.
Inherent authority is inherent until it conflicts with federal statute! Bush admin comparing his inherent authorities with Clinton’s inherent authorities is meaningless!

President Bush doesn’t have “inherent authority”. Congressional regulation has said so.

[quote]
100meters wrote:

As for the Bush quote, he’s lying. We do know this involve communications, definitely calls.
Bush:

“is that these calls are not intercepted within the country. They are from outside the country to in the country, or vice versa. So in other words, this is not a – if you’re calling from Houston to L.A., that call is not monitored. And if there was ever any need to monitor, there would be a process to do that.”

Soooo… it’s pretty easy to assume wiretapping is involved. (most likely echelon turned inwards). Of course the president is also lying here about the extent, but he doesn’t try to deny tapping phone calls.

Two points. That doesn’t necessarily involve wiretapping. It’s the definition of wiretapping, not communications, that’s at issue.

Second point: He was obviously saying that they were getting warrants for wiretaps as required. If his position was that they weren’t required, then no lie. Sorry.[/quote]

Come on. They don’t deny wiretapping. He said wiretapping would continue, etc…
Second. They are required. He knows it. (That’s why he said it.)

25

[quote]

100meters wrote:

No. Firstly, THE argument is the illegality of the president’s actions. That is the argument.(Everything after is a diversion).

BostonBarrister wrote:

In that case, this whole thread, started by you, is a diversion, because that wasn’t the point of the statements you’re quoting.

100meters wrote:

Oy. You said:
“Firstly, on inherent authority – the argument is whether the President has inherent authority.”

THIS IS A FAKE ARGUMENT. The issue is not does he have inherent authority to authorize surveillance minus a warrant, the issue is can the president override legal statutes that regulate what the president can do. Nothing presented by the admin/you says that he can. The whole inherent authority issues is for clouding puposes only.

It is working on you. Gore questioned the president’s claim (rightly). Scotty/Gonzales cloud the issue saying Clinton claimed inherent authority, which he had, prior to congressional regulation, and which he never claimed again afterwards. In short, the president has authority except where regulated by federal statute. Bush is claiming authority inspite of clear statutes saying otherwise. Thus there is no “hypocrisy” except for Bush Co.'s usage of it.[/quote]

Really, I did not think the point was this complicated, but apparently you’re getting lost.

Let’s review some basic civics: Constitution = highest law of the land. “Inherent authority” is another way to say “Constitutional authority”. Thus, statutes cannot curtail Constitutional authority.

In other words, if the authority was there prior to Congress’ attempt to regulate the area, then Congress’ statute cannot curtail the legitimate exercise of said inherent authority. Simple, no?

[quote]
100meters wrote:

Now, on inherent authority. The president does not have inherent authority as it pertains to domestic eavesdropping, (again the real issue is wiretaps on americans-which by the way isn’t in question, ever.)

The supreme court acknowledges that eavesdropping(domestic) is not legal(see 4th amendment) except where allowed by law, even if national security is involved. (see United States v. United States District Court (Keith)).That’s where FISA comes in. All wiretaps on foreign agents (in the u.s.) fall under FISA and of course require warrants. Bush is breaking that law. Clearly and utterly, knowingly.

BostonBarrister wrote:

Sorry, but you’re entirely incorrect.

Firstly: The USSC has never spoken on domestic eavesdropping versus international eavesdropping as such. The question is the source of the president’s authority. Nixon’s use of the CIA et al to listen in on purely domestic stuff, for seemingly domestic purposes, wasn’t facially unconstitutional – thus the need for Congress to pass FISA to address areas where the President had overstepped his authority.

Or did you think there was no need for FISA in the first place? Because if you were correct, FISA would be entirely unnecessary.

Secondly, the President does have inherent authority, under his commander-in-chief and international authority, to act. This includes warrantless searches and warrantless surveillance. This is what Congress attempted to curtail with FISA, in 1978, but only w/r/t U.S. persons.

100meters wrote:

He has authority, unless dictated by statute![/quote]

See above.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

There are several open issues here – the actual nature of the domestic searches (would they even fall under FISA if it was a data mining program? Hard to say), and the scope to which COngress can even limit the President’s inherent powers under Article II to act (in other words, Congress does not necessarily win all separation of powers arguments). This is much the same as the War Powers Act, though touching on different executive powers.

100meters wrote:

It’s not hard to say. Gonzales said it![/quote]

?

[quote]100meters wrote:

Your comparison with no scrutiny is not very accurate. The fake comparison the right has been making IS that Clinton did it too. He did not. As already pointed out FISA did not cover physical searches pre 1995. Prior to that, Clinton obviously had “inherent authority” to perform such searches. Gorelick’s comments also are just stating the obvious.

In 1995 with Clinton and Gorelicks approval the FISA is changed. Despite your opinion, it does change everything. The Clinton admin viewed FISA as the law, that they followed. The Clinton admin never said they had “inherent authority” to override FISA once it covered physical searches. The Bush admin makes such a claim with regards to wiretaps, despite the fact it is clearly not allowed under FISA.

So Gonzales is slandering and Scotty is misleading and lying (still no hypocrisy, at all–except in the way I pointed out already).

BostonBarrister wrote:

No. The point of it isn’t “Clinton did it too.” The point is that the Clinton administration’s position was that the President had the inherent authority to engage in actual personal and property searches of U.S. persons on U.S. soil in areas touching on his commander in chief and international powers, which are necessarily more invasive than are searches listening in on phone calls.

The fact that Clinton may have subsequently agreed with Congress’ attempt to limit those inherent powers does not affect whether they exist, and it not binding on the Bush Administration’s understanding of the inherent powers of the executive.

FISA is not part of this point. The argument was never “Congress has authorized the President to act this way because it didn’t address actual searches with FISA.” The President’s powers in this area aren’t statutory – they’re COnstitutional. The argument concerns the President’s inherent powers. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

100meters wrote:

For me? You aren’t getting the fundamental aspect that president can’t do what congress has said can’t be done.
Inherent authority is inherent until it conflicts with federal statute! Bush admin comparing his inherent authorities with Clinton’s inherent authorities is meaningless!

President Bush doesn’t have “inherent authority”. Congressional regulation has said so.[/quote]

See basic civics point above.

They are required in certain circumstances. That’s why he said it.

26

[quote]dermo wrote:

JeffR,

***Democracies are based on process, not demagoguery. We don’t disregard laws and the constitution because of emotional appeals. And if they wanted to intercept calls from al-queda, they could get a warrant. And if there was not time beforehand, they have a 72-hour window afterwards to obtain one. If we are supposed to accept that the president can spy on anyone without being accountable, then we have to trust that our politicians, now and in the future, on both sides, will exercise the restraint to use this power for proper means and with restraint. Is there any reason to think that?

[/quote]

Well put.

27

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

[/quote]

Boy, it is simple, but wow!
The presidents authority does not exceed the ability of congress to regulate said authority. NOTHING you’ve said changes this simple fact.

see constitution for details on 3 braches of govt.

and congress says…

United States Code Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter 1 Section 1809. Criminal sanctions

(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally-

(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute

see FISA for details.

very simple no?

28

[quote]100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

Boy, it is simple, but wow!
The presidents authority does not exceed the ability of congress to regulate said authority. NOTHING you’ve said changes this simple fact.

see constitution for details on 3 braches of govt.

and congress says…

United States Code Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter 1 Section 1809. Criminal sanctions

(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally-

(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute

see FISA for details.

very simple no?

[/quote]

No, no, and no again.

To reiterate: Congress cannot pass laws that override the Constitution. Simple, no?

FISA is a statute passed by Congress. It cannot regulate the President’s Constitutional authority.

Regarding the Constitution, I suggest you do read it – it does not authorize the legislative branch to limit the executive’s Article II powers. A tripartate government does not mean a government in which the legislature has supremacy. It’s quite an elegant document really…

To put it simply: Congress has NO authority to regulate the President’s Article II powers. Congress can only use its own Article I powers – it cannot regulate either the President’s Article II powers or the USSC’s Article III powers. That’s why those are laid out in the Constitution, not in statutes.

Really, this is basic civics.

29

BostonBarrister wrote:

“Really, this is basic civics.”

Game, set, match.

JeffR

30

Jerffy,

If you are going to wear your skirt and cheerlead like the vapid brainless pom-pom waving slut you are, at least learn to use the quoting feature.

Dumbass.

Your Pal,
Vroom

31

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

Boy, it is simple, but wow!
The presidents authority does not exceed the ability of congress to regulate said authority. NOTHING you’ve said changes this simple fact.

see constitution for details on 3 braches of govt.

and congress says…

United States Code Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter 1 Section 1809. Criminal sanctions

(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally-

(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute

see FISA for details.

very simple no?

No, no, and no again.

To reiterate: Congress cannot pass laws that override the Constitution. Simple, no?

FISA is a statute passed by Congress. It cannot regulate the President’s Constitutional authority.

Regarding the Constitution, I suggest you do read it – it does not authorize the legislative branch to limit the executive’s Article II powers. A tripartate government does not mean a government in which the legislature has supremacy. It’s quite an elegant document really…

To put it simply: Congress has NO authority to regulate the President’s Article II powers. Congress can only use its own Article I powers – it cannot regulate either the President’s Article II powers or the USSC’s Article III powers. That’s why those are laid out in the Constitution, not in statutes.

Really, this is basic civics.[/quote]

well, it is basics civics. I just don’t remember scotus ever coming close to suggesting FISA was an unconstitutional barrier on the president’s article II “powers”. Most likely, because they aren’t. FISA IS the exclusive means for gathering electronic surveillance, and congress does have the indisputable power to regulate electronic surveillance. (see article I!). Inherent power doesn’t equal exclusive power.The president does have inherent powers. Congress can regulate those powers. Still nothing said by you or the admin contradicts these basic civics.

32

[quote]JeffR wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

“Really, this is basic civics.”

Game, set, match.

JeffR

[/quote]
Clueless.

33

lumpy,

I want to make a wager with you.

Very simple.

I wager that the Supreme Court will find that the President’s position was Constitutional.

When I win that wager, you will publically state that you were wrong and apologize directly to George W. Bush.

IF SCOTUS states that the President’s actions were unconstitutional, I will publically admit my error, apologize to the new york times, and call for W. to be punished.

I’m tired of people running their mouths.

Let’s follow this to it’s conclusion.

I want a simple yes or no answer to my challenge. If you deflect, it allows all to see that you are just another partisan blowhard more interested in party than principle.

In summary, I’m not going to let this latest mud-slinging episode land on page 14 of the nyt.

JeffR

34

[quote]100meters wrote:

well, it is basics civics. I just don’t remember scotus ever coming close to suggesting FISA was an unconstitutional barrier on the president’s article II “powers”. Most likely, because they aren’t. FISA IS the exclusive means for gathering electronic surveillance, and congress does have the indisputable power to regulate electronic surveillance. (see article I!). Inherent power doesn’t equal exclusive power.The president does have inherent powers. Congress can regulate those powers. Still nothing said by you or the admin contradicts these basic civics.[/quote]

Actually, the Constitutional powers of each branch are exclusive. Do you think Congress could legislate something telling the USSC how it had to rule on something? Do you think Congress could legislate telling the President whom he could promote to the rank of General?

[Note: Some appear to touch on similar areas - notably Congress’ power to declare war and the President’s commander in chief power - thus the Constitutional connundrum and fight over the War Powers Act - but when and if that question is ever settled, the settling will merely make clear where the boundaries of two exclusive powers lie].

The USSC hasn’t ruled on the applicability of FISA to this issue because it hasn’t been asked to do so - remember, it doesn’t just hand down rulings on open issues, it needs an actual case to come before it on the specific point. Don’t know if it will either – it hasn’t ruled on the War Powers Act either, and that’s been around a whole lot longer. A lot of times the USSC will avoid these types of disputes – “political question” doctrine is often used by the USSC to avoid fights on policy.

But there’s another part of civics working here: each branch of the government has the responsibility and the power to interpret the Constitution for itself. The USSC can step in and give the last word, as it did when it said President Truman was stepping outside the bounds of his Constitutional commander in chief powers when he seized the steel factories during the Korean War in order to get them back to producing war-related items when the workers were striking. But unless and until that happens, the executive branch can and does have the authority to assert its own interpretation.

In this case, it is well established that the President has inherent Constitutional authority in international affairs and explicit authority as Commander in chief power. Previous administrations, including Democratic administrations, have interpreted this authority to extend to searches and seizures on U.S. soil and of U.S. persons, provided they are related to international issues.

For example, President Clinton’s assertion of his inherent authority to make a physical search and seizure of Aldrich Ames’ U.S. residence and the items therein when they suspected him of being a spy.

Thus, FISA, to the extent it attempts to “regulate” in an area that the executive has inherent Constitutional authority, would be unconstitutional.

So, going back to your original feeble claim on this thread, McClellan and Gonzalez were making the point that the Clinton Administration had argued that actual, personal searches were part of the inherent Constitutional powers of the executive, that whatever the NSA program is doing is less invasive and obviously more within the inherent executive power, and that thus Gore was being a hypocrite.

Not “black is white” but a sophisticated Constitutional analysis, and then some history, and then applying it to Gore’s claims.

I wanted to clarify something. As I mentioned before, Congress cannot “regulate” the other branches’ use of those branches’ Constitutional powers. But Congress can utilize its own powers. For example, Congress couldn’t “regulate” his authority and command the President not to support the contras in Nicarauga in the 80s, when the Congress clearly did not agree with the President on that issue.

It could, however, use its own Article I spending power to attach riders to a spending bill saying none of the money covered by that bill could be spent to help the contras, which it did on every spending bill for a long time. Notice how that’s different from “regulating” how the President can use his inherent Article II powers.

Another example of how Congress could use its Article I powers would be to strip matters from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts - but it couldn’t pass a bill telling the USSC how to exercise its Article III powers.

To the extent possible, it’s always better when the political branches are in agreement regarding the extent of their powers. When they fight over them, that is problematic - and sometimes it draws the USSC in, as was the case with the Steel Seizure cases.

I don’t foresee that happening here. Firstly, FISA was passed by Congress in 1978 - perhaps that Congress at that time would have wanted to fight with this President’s interpretation of his executive powers, but I don’t think this Congress at this time will wish to do so. If they do, they could pass something attempting to clarify FISA and make it explicitly apply to whatever the NSA is doing – odds of that are slim to none.

More likely, this Congress will just silently acquiesce - it won’t pass any legislation specifically supporting the program (mostly because the administration wouldn’t want it to do so, because it would require making public too many details of how the program works, and they don’t want the terrorists to know its parameters so they can’t react).

35

Now 100meters, given what I’ve posted immediately above, why don’t you read the DOJ brief on the NSA program and try to understand the arguments therein:

ADDENDUM:

Andy McCarthy explained the inherent power point very well this morning (1/23/06), so I want to put that in here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200601231259.asp

EXCERPT:

[i]The president is not above the law, but neither is any other branch. The highest law in the United States is the Constitution. Congress is not above that law ? and it if enacts a statute, a “law,” that undermines or alters the Constitution’s structure, it is Congress that has placed itself above the law.

There is remotely nothing novel in this. When Congress enacts a law that attempts to regulate an activity committed by the Constitution to state control, that law is struck down ? we do not say the states have put themselves above the law by challenging federal legislation. When Congress enacts a law that attempts to regulate when state action violates the Constitution, that law is struck down as an invalid attempt to exercise judicial power ? we do not say the judges have placed themselves above the law. Similarly, when Congress enacts a law that attempts to regulate a power committed by the Constitution to the president, that law is unconstitutional.

Congress tried to do exactly that, for example, in 1876. It passed a law purporting to make its approval necessary before the president could remove certain executive-branch officials. A half-century later, the Supreme Court struck that law down in Myers v. United States (1926). President Taft was not putting himself “above the law” by firing someone within his constitutional chain-of-command in spite of the 1876 statute. To the contrary, Congress had placed itself above the law by ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers. By attempting through legislation to dilute the executive’s constitutional power.

Congress did so again with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 statute which sought to make judicial approval, on a legal standard of probable cause, a prerequisite to national-security eavesdropping (and, now, searches). FISA may not be unconstitutional in all its particulars (although it may be ? and it certainly needs overhauling if it is to avoid laughingstock status, pitted against 21st-century enemies versed in 21st-century technology). But to the extent FISA limits the power of the commander-in-chief to conduct warfare, to the extent it would transfer to judges the decision whether an essential incident of warfare may be used, it is no more constitutional ? or rational ? than if it had purported to put the courts in charge of military target selection, or other battlefield judgments.[/i]

36

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Now 100meters, given what I’ve posted immediately above, why don’t you read the DOJ brief on the NSA program and try to understand the arguments therein:

[/quote]

Uhmm.I’ve read it. It’s the same 2 arguments essentially, that have been discussed. AUMF and inherent authority. The AUMF is obviously not one of the legal statutes for electronic surveillance. You know my opinion on inherent authority.

37

More made up stuff from President Bush.

Q: My name is Tiffany Cooper. I?m a sophomore here at Kansas State and I was just wanting to get your comments about education. Recently 12.7 billion dollars was cut from education. I was just wondering how is that supposed to help our futures?

Bush: Education budget was cut ? say it again. What was cut?

Q: 12.7 billion dollars was cut from education. I?m wanting to know how is that supposed to help our futures?

Bush: At the federal level?

Q: Yes.

Bush: I don?t think we?ve actually ? for higher education? Student loans?

Q: Yes, student loans.

Bush: Actually, I think what we did was reform the student loan program. We are not cutting money out of it. In other words, people aren?t going to be cut off the program. We?re just making sure it works better as part of the reconciliation package I think she?s talking about? Yeah ? It is a form of the program to make sure it functions better. In other words, we?re not taking people off student loans. We?re saving money in the student loan program because it?s inefficient. So I think the thing to look at is whether or not there will be fewer people getting student loans. I don?t think so.

Secondly, on Pell Grants, we are actually expanding the number of Pell grants through our budget. Great question. The key on education is to make sure that we stay focused on how do we stay competitive into the 21st century, and I plan on doing some talking about math and science and engineering programs so that people who graduate out of college will have the skills necessary to compete in this competitive world. But I think i?m right on this. I will check when I get back to Washington, but thank you for your question.

This was at Kansas State.

Of course 12.7 billion was cut, with Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote.

38

I am not going to get into this topic of bush or the democrats, because its obviously a split 50/50 in terms of agreeing with the bush admin or disagreeing. The way I see it, is that if you have nothing to hide, why would you give a shit who listens in to your calls? ohhhh they invaded my privacy, yeah and so is little johnny with his FM radio. Is it right? No but what are you going to do about it? Live your damn life and go about your business, if you have something to hide, you might be afraid that the govt is going to wiretap you. Everyone is way to paranoid, and probably have been watching too many Michael Moore films.
Anyways, thats as far as I am going to go.If you have nothing to hide, who cares.

39

Is the education “cut” actually a reduction in the growth of the budget?

I would have to see the numbers to believe it.

The Democrats are very fund of characterizing small budget increases as cuts.

I believe Bush would not respond well to the question. He is not good off the cuff when responding to things that are not based in fact.

40

[quote]mike08042 wrote:
I am not going to get into this topic of bush or the democrats, because its obviously a split 50/50 in terms of agreeing with the bush admin or disagreeing. The way I see it, is that if you have nothing to hide, why would you give a shit who listens in to your calls? ohhhh they invaded my privacy, yeah and so is little johnny with his FM radio. Is it right? No but what are you going to do about it? Live your damn life and go about your business, if you have something to hide, you might be afraid that the govt is going to wiretap you. Everyone is way to paranoid, and probably have been watching too many Michael Moore films.
Anyways, thats as far as I am going to go.If you have nothing to hide, who cares.[/quote]

The problem is the potential for abuse. This is a slippery slope. What is to stop politicians from using this for partisan purposes? Does anything think that Karl Rove would shy away from such a tactic? Once it is ok for the executive branch to eavesdrop, what stops congress from eventually obtaining that power? It is the gradual erosion, played out over a siginificant amount of time, that deprives us of our rights.