Zap: “It also looks like some Dems will stoop to undercutting our war effort to make political gains.”
****When you say “war effort”, to which war are you referring (Terror, Iraq, Afghanistan, Christmas). It does make a difference.
It amazes me that anyone thinks Bush was NOT breaking the law.
FISA is clear.
It is not a question of whether or not you should wiretap potential terrorists.
It is not a question of whether or not it was the “right” thing to do.
There was no need for urgency that required the illegal activity that was not allowed for in FISA.
It remains to be seen if he will be charged according to law and whether or not the USA is a real democracy or some kind of pretend democracy with pretend laws.
I am sorry if this upsets Bush supporters but come on, it was a pretty stupid thing to be doing, and completely unnecessary, he could have done the exact same thing legally. If someone I supported was doing something that stupid I would feel like a right idiot.
I wonder who he was actually listening to, my bets are, NOT just terrorists, and THAT is the reason for the secrecy. However I could be wrong on that.
100meters,
Going way back to your beginning of this thread, and assuming you now grasp, whether you agree with it or not, the Article II inherent authority argument, here’s some more information on the Clinton Administration’s position w/r/t the executive’s inherent authority.
Here’s a link to the 1994 Office of Legal Counsel opinion by Walter Dellinger:
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm
Key excerpt:
The fact that a sitting President signed the statute in question does not change this analysis [N.B., this means that if, in Dellinger's words, "the President believes that an enactment unconstitutionally limits his powers, he has the authority to defend his office and decline to abide by it."] The text of the Constitution offers no basis for distinguishing bills based on who signed them; there is no constitutional analogue to the principles of waiver and estoppel. Moreover, every President since Eisenhower has issued signing statements in which he stated that he would refuse to execute unconstitutional provisions. ? As we noted in our memorandum on Presidential signing statements, the President "may properly [u]announce[/u] to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority." Memorandum for Bernard N. Nussbaum, Counsel to the President, from Walter Dellinger, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel at 4 (Nov. 3, 1993) [underlining in original]. (Of course, the President is not obligated to announce his reservations in a signing statement; he can convey his views in the time, manner, and form of his choosing.) Finally, the Supreme Court recognized this practice in INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983): the Court stated that "it is not uncommon for Presidents to approve legislation containing parts which are objectionable on constitutional grounds" and then cited the example of President Franklin Roosevelt's memorandum to Attorney General Jackson, in which he indicated his intention not to implement an unconstitutional provision in a statute that he had just signed. Id. at 942 n.13. These sources suggest that the President's signing of a bill does not affect his authority to decline to enforce constitutionally objectionable provisions thereof.
In accordance with these propositions, we do not believe that a President is limited to choosing between vetoing, for example, the Defense Appropriations Act and executing an unconstitutional provision in it. In our view, the President has the authority to sign legislation containing desirable elements while refusing to execute a constitutionally defective provision.
[quote]dermo wrote:
Zap: “It also looks like some Dems will stoop to undercutting our war effort to make political gains.”
****When you say “war effort”, to which war are you referring (Terror, Iraq, Afghanistan, Christmas). It does make a difference.[/quote]
The war on terror includes both the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. I believe we are fighting terrorists in both places.
Andy McCarthy points out another interesting Clinton-era OLC opinion:
http://nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200602060731.asp
EXCERPT:
Thus in 2000, for example, a new OLC director issued yet another formal opinion ? one with ironic bearing on the current melodrama. It was called “Sharing Title III Electronic Surveillance Material with the Intelligence Community.”
Title III is the statute that prescribes procedures for wiretaps in criminal investigations, as contrasted with FISA, which covers intelligence cases. In it, Congress strictly limited the sharing of eavesdropping evidence. Yet, the Reno Justice Department admonished that there would be times when the wiretapping of Americans might ( http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/titleIIIfinal.htm ) “yield information of such importance to national security or foreign relations that the President’s constitutional powers will permit disclosure of the information to the intelligence community notwithstanding the restrictions of Title III.”
But wouldn’t that amount to “domestic spying?” For the Clinton administration, that was of little moment. “Where the President’s authority concerning national security or foreign relations is in tension with a statutory rather than a constitutional rule, the statute cannot displace the President’s constitutional authority and should be read to be ‘subject to an implied exception in deference to such presidential powers,’” declared the OLC ? taking pains to flag that it had borrowed supporting language from an old opinion by an influential federal appellate judge named “Scalia.”
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
dermo wrote:
Zap: “It also looks like some Dems will stoop to undercutting our war effort to make political gains.”
****When you say “war effort”, to which war are you referring (Terror, Iraq, Afghanistan, Christmas). It does make a difference.
The war on terror includes both the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. I believe we are fighting terrorists in both places.[/quote]
Ok. Maybe someone could answer this question for me: if the president’s powers are allowed to expand during times of war, are those expanded powers limited only to fighting those specific wars? In other words, can the president use being in a war with Iraq as a reason to wiretap suspicious people unrelated to that war?
[quote]dermo wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
dermo wrote:
Zap: “It also looks like some Dems will stoop to undercutting our war effort to make political gains.”
****When you say “war effort”, to which war are you referring (Terror, Iraq, Afghanistan, Christmas). It does make a difference.
The war on terror includes both the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. I believe we are fighting terrorists in both places.
Ok. Maybe someone could answer this question for me: if the president’s powers are allowed to expand during times of war, are those expanded powers limited only to fighting those specific wars? In other words, can the president use being in a war with Iraq as a reason to wiretap suspicious people unrelated to that war?
[/quote]
What is wrong with this picture? Why do you think that President Bush somehow wants to spy on OUR phone conversations? Do you really think he stands for government intrusion into all of our day-to-day lives?
More to the point, do you really thinks he is trying to change the government’s powers to spy on the 'average Joe" who is minding his business, working hard to earn a living, and living, well like the rest of us? Do you really think he stays up at night thinking of ways to deceitfully expand his powers “using” the war with Iraq?
What I think has been totally forgotten is that we were – WITHOUT CAUSE – attacked on 9/11. What that clearly showed us is that the government was not doing enough to track who is in this country, what are they doing, who are they talking to, and where is their money coming from.
Quite frankly, even if this administration has as its goal spying on all of us – which is a ridiculous statement, but bear with me – I frankly couldn’t care less if they would listen in on my boring conversations, watch me go to the gym, get coffee at Starbucks, etc. They would be wasting their time because I DON’T ASSOCIATE WITH TERRORISTS AND I AM A LOYAL AMERICAN!
Therefore, I wish you people would stop wasting time on kicking the president or acting like the U.S. is doing something wrong here. I for one rather the government do these things to keep us safe so I know when I go up into the Empire State Building – which I do for business from time to time – I am confident that I will be leaving alive that day.
Jean Kirkpatrick said it best way back in the early 80’s. Speaking about Liberal Democrats she said “they always blame America first!” She was right – you libs always blame America first (unless of course someone with the last name of “Clinton” is in the White House).
You guys need to stop and support what this administration is doing to keep us safe and support our troops in Iraq!
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
dermo wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
dermo wrote:
Zap: “It also looks like some Dems will stoop to undercutting our war effort to make political gains.”
****When you say “war effort”, to which war are you referring (Terror, Iraq, Afghanistan, Christmas). It does make a difference.
The war on terror includes both the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. I believe we are fighting terrorists in both places.
Ok. Maybe someone could answer this question for me: if the president’s powers are allowed to expand during times of war, are those expanded powers limited only to fighting those specific wars? In other words, can the president use being in a war with Iraq as a reason to wiretap suspicious people unrelated to that war?
What is wrong with this picture? Why do you think that President Bush somehow wants to spy on OUR phone conversations? Do you really think he stands for government intrusion into all of our day-to-day lives?
More to the point, do you really thinks he is trying to change the government’s powers to spy on the 'average Joe" who is minding his business, working hard to earn a living, and living, well like the rest of us? Do you really think he stays up at night thinking of ways to deceitfully expand his powers “using” the war with Iraq?
What I think has been totally forgotten is that we were – WITHOUT CAUSE – attacked on 9/11. What that clearly showed us is that the government was not doing enough to track who is in this country, what are they doing, who are they talking to, and where is their money coming from.
Quite frankly, even if this administration has as its goal spying on all of us – which is a ridiculous statement, but bear with me – I frankly couldn’t care less if they would listen in on my boring conversations, watch me go to the gym, get coffee at Starbucks, etc. They would be wasting their time because I DON’T ASSOCIATE WITH TERRORISTS AND I AM A LOYAL AMERICAN!
Therefore, I wish you people would stop wasting time on kicking the president or acting like the U.S. is doing something wrong here. I for one rather the government do these things to keep us safe so I know when I go up into the Empire State Building – which I do for business from time to time – I am confident that I will be leaving alive that day.
Jean Kirkpatrick said it best way back in the early 80’s. Speaking about Liberal Democrats she said “they always blame America first!” She was right – you libs always blame America first (unless of course someone with the last name of “Clinton” is in the White House).
You guys need to stop and support what this administration is doing to keep us safe and support our troops in Iraq![/quote]
Steve,
I think that we have covered this before. No, I cannot imagine the president is spying on me, and if he wants to, then have at it. My life is not exactly reality-show material.
However, I do think that there is very high abuse potential if we decide that the president can just do anything that he wants. The 1978 FISA law was disregarded, and your justification is that the president is infallible - he can do anything that he wants, and anyone who questions him is supporting terror.
I don’t care who the president is - Clinton, Bush…hell, I would not trust myself with that kind of unlimited power. Do you really trust our presidents to do anything that they want? There have been numerous posts about how this spying could be abused - do you bother to read these?
I don’t think that anyone on the board thinks that they are being personally spied on, but it is possible that a member of the media, or a political rival was spied upon.
As for 9/11, we declared war on Afghanistan and Iraq after that. The “War on Terror” is no more legimate, in a legal sense, then the “War on Drugs”. Terror will never be entirely eliminated - there will never be a signed truce, and we will never be sure of having reduced terrorism to absolute zero.
If the post-9/11 “war on terror” is the justification for giving the president unchecked power, then that power will be transferred to each of his successors. This is unconstitutional and frightening.
Okay, but I don’t think many people are claiming it is “domestic repression”. I think some people are concerned that citizens are being spied on… period.
They are concerned not because it is Bush doing the spying, but because it is the government doing the spying.
Again, I can see your view, but don’t you at least see that other people can make a different judgment on giving Bush the benefit of the doubt on this issue?
This is a stretch based on your own statements. Your suspicion of both sides is not coming through. If approrpiate people were not briefed with all the facts and were not given any oversight, then they should be able to say so.
I see a lot of “time of war” hysteria when it seems pretty unnecessary. It is a divisive comment/strategy which is meant to polarize the issue. There is no need for such ongoing division. However, it is not fair to blame one side for it, either.
[quote]dermo wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
dermo wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
dermo wrote:
Zap: “It also looks like some Dems will stoop to undercutting our war effort to make political gains.”
****When you say “war effort”, to which war are you referring (Terror, Iraq, Afghanistan, Christmas). It does make a difference.
The war on terror includes both the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. I believe we are fighting terrorists in both places.
Ok. Maybe someone could answer this question for me: if the president’s powers are allowed to expand during times of war, are those expanded powers limited only to fighting those specific wars? In other words, can the president use being in a war with Iraq as a reason to wiretap suspicious people unrelated to that war?
What is wrong with this picture? Why do you think that President Bush somehow wants to spy on OUR phone conversations? Do you really think he stands for government intrusion into all of our day-to-day lives?
More to the point, do you really thinks he is trying to change the government’s powers to spy on the 'average Joe" who is minding his business, working hard to earn a living, and living, well like the rest of us? Do you really think he stays up at night thinking of ways to deceitfully expand his powers “using” the war with Iraq?
What I think has been totally forgotten is that we were – WITHOUT CAUSE – attacked on 9/11. What that clearly showed us is that the government was not doing enough to track who is in this country, what are they doing, who are they talking to, and where is their money coming from.
Quite frankly, even if this administration has as its goal spying on all of us – which is a ridiculous statement, but bear with me – I frankly couldn’t care less if they would listen in on my boring conversations, watch me go to the gym, get coffee at Starbucks, etc. They would be wasting their time because I DON’T ASSOCIATE WITH TERRORISTS AND I AM A LOYAL AMERICAN!
Therefore, I wish you people would stop wasting time on kicking the president or acting like the U.S. is doing something wrong here. I for one rather the government do these things to keep us safe so I know when I go up into the Empire State Building – which I do for business from time to time – I am confident that I will be leaving alive that day.
Jean Kirkpatrick said it best way back in the early 80’s. Speaking about Liberal Democrats she said “they always blame America first!” She was right – you libs always blame America first (unless of course someone with the last name of “Clinton” is in the White House).
You guys need to stop and support what this administration is doing to keep us safe and support our troops in Iraq!
Steve,
I think that we have covered this before. No, I cannot imagine the president is spying on me, and if he wants to, then have at it. My life is not exactly reality-show material.
However, I do think that there is very high abuse potential if we decide that the president can just do anything that he wants. The 1978 FISA law was disregarded, and your justification is that the president is infallible - he can do anything that he wants, and anyone who questions him is supporting terror.
I don’t care who the president is - Clinton, Bush…hell, I would not trust myself with that kind of unlimited power. Do you really trust our presidents to do anything that they want? There have been numerous posts about how this spying could be abused - do you bother to read these?
I don’t think that anyone on the board thinks that they are being personally spied on, but it is possible that a member of the media, or a political rival was spied upon.
As for 9/11, we declared war on Afghanistan and Iraq after that. The “War on Terror” is no more legimate, in a legal sense, then the “War on Drugs”. Terror will never be entirely eliminated - there will never be a signed truce, and we will never be sure of having reduced terrorism to absolute zero.
If the post-9/11 “war on terror” is the justification for giving the president unchecked power, then that power will be transferred to each of his successors. This is unconstitutional and frightening.[/quote]
Dermo,
Good post and I respect your position. I just want to clarify that I am NOT SAYING THAT THIS PRESIDENT IS INFALLABLE nor am I saying that he should have “unlimited power.” I believe with all of my being that the President’s constitutional power as “Commander and Cheif” gives him the authority to do what he has done to keep us safe. The fact that there is a law trying to limit that power, doesn’t mean that law is consitutional or (in the words of Al Gore)has controlling authority here.
Your side says that president broke the law. Our side says he didn’t. Since we cannot be both right, I suggest trying to impeach him if you really feel that way.
In the meantime, I will agree to disagree with you about the “War on Terror.” I do think that this is real and that we really need to be on the offensive, because if we rest (as we did pre- 9/11) we will be hit again.
[quote]dermo wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
dermo wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
dermo wrote:
Zap: “It also looks like some Dems will stoop to undercutting our war effort to make political gains.”
****When you say “war effort”, to which war are you referring (Terror, Iraq, Afghanistan, Christmas). It does make a difference.
The war on terror includes both the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. I believe we are fighting terrorists in both places.
Ok. Maybe someone could answer this question for me: if the president’s powers are allowed to expand during times of war, are those expanded powers limited only to fighting those specific wars? In other words, can the president use being in a war with Iraq as a reason to wiretap suspicious people unrelated to that war?
What is wrong with this picture? Why do you think that President Bush somehow wants to spy on OUR phone conversations? Do you really think he stands for government intrusion into all of our day-to-day lives?
More to the point, do you really thinks he is trying to change the government’s powers to spy on the 'average Joe" who is minding his business, working hard to earn a living, and living, well like the rest of us? Do you really think he stays up at night thinking of ways to deceitfully expand his powers “using” the war with Iraq?
What I think has been totally forgotten is that we were – WITHOUT CAUSE – attacked on 9/11. What that clearly showed us is that the government was not doing enough to track who is in this country, what are they doing, who are they talking to, and where is their money coming from.
Quite frankly, even if this administration has as its goal spying on all of us – which is a ridiculous statement, but bear with me – I frankly couldn’t care less if they would listen in on my boring conversations, watch me go to the gym, get coffee at Starbucks, etc. They would be wasting their time because I DON’T ASSOCIATE WITH TERRORISTS AND I AM A LOYAL AMERICAN!
Therefore, I wish you people would stop wasting time on kicking the president or acting like the U.S. is doing something wrong here. I for one rather the government do these things to keep us safe so I know when I go up into the Empire State Building – which I do for business from time to time – I am confident that I will be leaving alive that day.
Jean Kirkpatrick said it best way back in the early 80’s. Speaking about Liberal Democrats she said “they always blame America first!” She was right – you libs always blame America first (unless of course someone with the last name of “Clinton” is in the White House).
You guys need to stop and support what this administration is doing to keep us safe and support our troops in Iraq!
Steve,
I think that we have covered this before. No, I cannot imagine the president is spying on me, and if he wants to, then have at it. My life is not exactly reality-show material.
However, I do think that there is very high abuse potential if we decide that the president can just do anything that he wants. The 1978 FISA law was disregarded, and your justification is that the president is infallible - he can do anything that he wants, and anyone who questions him is supporting terror.
I don’t care who the president is - Clinton, Bush…hell, I would not trust myself with that kind of unlimited power. Do you really trust our presidents to do anything that they want? There have been numerous posts about how this spying could be abused - do you bother to read these?
I don’t think that anyone on the board thinks that they are being personally spied on, but it is possible that a member of the media, or a political rival was spied upon.
As for 9/11, we declared war on Afghanistan and Iraq after that. The “War on Terror” is no more legimate, in a legal sense, then the “War on Drugs”. Terror will never be entirely eliminated - there will never be a signed truce, and we will never be sure of having reduced terrorism to absolute zero.
If the post-9/11 “war on terror” is the justification for giving the president unchecked power, then that power will be transferred to each of his successors. This is unconstitutional and frightening.[/quote]
One more thing – I do read all of the posts – I really do. Believe it or not, I really don’t want to post that much, but sometimes I just cannot believe what I am reading.
Look, ANY POWER that the government has, has potential for abuse – just look at tax policy! The fact that someting has POTENTIAL for abuse or could be abused, doesn’t mean that the policy is bad. We need to make certain that the policy is within bounds. In this case, since we are dealing with the President of the U.S. (whomever he or she would be now or in the future) we are dealing in the realm of constitutional authority. If the President acts within accord with his constitutional authority, then it is OK with me. If you don’t like that, then I suggest that you voice your opinion to change (via amendment) the constitution.
Basically, nothing on this board has persuaded me to change my view that the president has acted within his legal constitutional bounds or we need to change anything because of these activities.
That’s just my view…
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
dermo wrote:
Dermo,
Your side says that president broke the law. Our side says he didn’t. Since we cannot be both right, I suggest trying to impeach him if you really feel that way.
In the meantime, I will agree to disagree with you about the “War on Terror.” I do think that this is real and that we really need to be on the offensive, because if we rest (as we did pre- 9/11) we will be hit again.
[/quote]
Steveo,
It is not a clear, our side versus yours issue. Earlier in this thread, I posted a long list of conservatives who are concerned that the president broke the law. I think that we both know how difficult it would be for a democratic minority to impeach a president. They clearly did not follow the law, and the question is whether the loophole - expanded executive powers during a time of war - makes their actions legal.
At one point, the administration renamed the “War on Terror” and called it SAVE - “The struggle against violent extremism” (can’t believe that one did not stick). My point is not that terrorism is not a great threat, nor that we should not be proactive. My point is that it is not a “war” in the technical sense. The most important document in this country, the constitution, states that only congress can declare war. Did this ever happen? Wars are between two states, not between a country and an international group of criminals.
US vs. Iraq = War
US vs. al Queda = not a War
That does not mean that we cannot aggresively fight terror, and use methods similar to those we would use in a war. If you want to call it a manhunt, and state that we will declare war on states that support terror (i.e. Afghanistan), that is valid. If you want to say that to keep our country safe, our conflict with al Queda necessitates changing laws that are dated and cumbersome, that is valid. But to say that post 9/11, we can disregard the legal process for declaring war, and that the attempt to reduce terror is akin to a war, is not legally sound.
I am not comparing anyone to Hitler, but as a frame of reference, Hitler used the terrorist burning of Germany’s most prestigious building to increase his power and decrease the civil rights of his people. I am not saying that Bush is like Hitler, but that nationalism and emotional appeals cannot unbalance the powers in our government.