Posted on 12/20/2005 3:57:06 PM PST by MikeA
Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold wants to be President, and that's fair enough. The same applies to Lindsey Graham, But until you run nationwide and win, Senators, please stop stripping the Presidency of its Constitutional authority to defend America.
What we really have here is a perfect illustration of why America's Founders gave the executive branch the largest measure of Constitutional authority on national security. They recognized that a committee of 535 talking heads couldn't be trusted with such grave responsibility. There is no evidence that these wiretaps violate the law. But there is lots of evidence that the Senators are "illegally" usurping Presidential power...
The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But no Administration then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President's power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it. FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed.
The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
It's time for these Democratic Senators and hand-wringing "Republicans" like the vapid Lindsey Graham to stop running for the White House on the back of US national security. The Congress was consulted on this, but the Democrats being in knee jerk attack dog mode are just latching on to this as another means of attacking the president when they approved of it. Sort of reminds you of their stance on the war in Iraq doesn't it? "Well, we might have been for it then but we now know we were fooled!" Spare me...
The president now needs to task the Justice Department to go after the New York Times and Washington Post for revealing US natl. security secrets, both in the case of this wiretap story and the CIA prisons the Washington Compost revealed. These same hypocritical and co-opted media sources screamed bloody murder about the harm the "outting" of a pencil pusher at Langley, Valerie Plame, caused and demanded investigations and indictments. This is a far more serious breach of US natl. security than the outting of a nobody hack bureacrat at the CIA, which wasn't a breach at all. So what's good for Karl Rove and Scooter Libby I guess is good for the punks at the NY Slimes and Washington Compost...and the buck stops at the top just like they demanded in the Plame leak.
A must read. Good post. I especially like the shots directed at Lindsay Graham, Joe Biden and the media. Well done.
The Failed Media may love you for it, the average Republican DOES NOT. You have NO political futures beyond the offices you currently hold. The people who make up the Republican Party do not reward political treason with their money, their time nor their nomination. You bozos are SO over.
My favorite line.
Great post! Excellent column.
Thank you!
I believe that this entire matter will backfire on the Defeatocrats and the RINOS. The average Joe WANTS Al Queda to be monitored and couldn't give a rat's behind about whether or not some collaborator in the US has his or her "privacy" violated.
What the libs don't seem to understand is that their privacy will mean nothing when they're dead after a dirty bomb explodes in their city.
If the Administration thinks it basically has the power to do whatever it pleases -- detain Americans indefinitely, torture terror suspects, eavesdrop without a warrant -- then why bother pushing for the Patriot Act? What do we need new laws for, if were're already allowed to use every trick in the book because our President says it's okay?
I'll bet that life under the next Administration is going to be very interesting.
bookmark bump
B4Ranch. I could sit here and discuss civil societies with you. But the fact is, the enemy sets the rules. This is the global jungle. If your enemy doesen't recognize borders, uniforms, civillians, governments or law, then survival becomes the priority in the order of business.
Civil liberties have always been curtailed during a time of war in this country. That was even during the more traditional state-v-state army on battlefield wars. The images of airliners incenerating one of our country's proudest landmarks was enough for me to realize that we had not been vigilant.
Just a few points:
1. how many average citizens do you know of being detained without charges at the current moment? Padillia has been charged and i wouldn't say he qualifies as your average citizen.
2. Name one documented case of "torture" perpetrated by a representative of the US Government. Panties on the head does not qualify.
3. The NSA has been eavesdropping and conducting countersurveillence on international calls without warrants since most folks in this country were only a glimmer in their fathers eye.
The founding fathers understood that a strong executive branch was necessary for leadership during times of war. They did not enshrine the legislative branch with the execution of our mutual defense. This responsibility was entrusted in the Commander in Chief.
There was a great amount of debate during the constitutional convention regarding this matter and the debates are well documented and available and show that the spirit of the Constitution validates this. At the end of the debate, the majority realized (remember they had just finished fighting a very costly war) that leadership and quick decisions were essential in time of war.
There are currently 11 amendments ratified in the Bill of Rights, not 10. Original numbers 3-12 are now our familiar 1-10. Original number 2 was finally ratified in 1992 as Amendment XXVII:
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.This is now more popularly known as the "Madison amendment." If you don't like what they cost, vote them out. The original first proposed amendment could, like eventual XXVII, still be ratified; they didn't start time limited ratification until much later. Thus we got XXVII, we can't get the ERA, but we can still get the original first amendment if we really want it:
After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.Most days I'm glad we didn't ratify this, some days I wonder if it might help. Could they really Gerrymander 1000+ districts in California? Often I rail at those who cite the precedence of the First amendment, or less frequently the Second based on their alleged numerical position with that first Congress. It wasn't so. If order meant anything then, measures designed to reduce corruption in Congress were considered more important, twice, than anything in the current first 10! Eventually the states failed to agree.
I suppose one more source of amendment order might exist, ratification order. Obviously the states didn't take a block up or down vote on the 12. Whether they ratified them in the modern order or even considered their order I don't know.
outstanding article.
"At the end of the debate, the majority realized (remember they had just finished fighting a very costly war) that leadership and quick decisions were essential in time of war."
If an immediate decision is seen as necessary then I expect the President and his staff to make the decision. If the decision violates established laws I have no problem with that either.
Where I get itchy is if the decision violates established 30 year old laws then I expect the President and his staff to go to the judge(s) and explain what was done, why it was done and get legal authority to continue to do whatever it was that they determined necessary for national defense a few hours prior.
Had the President done that, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I do not think that Executive Orders should be permitted when Congress is in session. EO's were permitted because of the delays in travel and communication 150 years ago. Today we have instant communication, almost instant travel capabilities. Congress could be recalled in 12 hours if necessary therefore I don't see a need for EO's anymore. A 24 hour EO maybe, a continual one should be a no-no, IMHO.
One of the great benefits of this Free Republic we share is the learning experience it provides.Thank you for your post!
The original first amendment that you close with is particularly intriguing.I have the unenviable reality of living in John Murtha's district yet my little corner of it routinely votes Republican.
The population is about 60K.Imagine my joy if we had our own Republican congressman!
Of course, also imagine the cost of 6,000 or more professional bloviators to our Republic.LOL! I guess my own self-interest will have to take a backseat for now. :)
AWESOME! Oklahoma has one of the first primaries and McCain/Hagel/Graham can go pound salt in this state. Frist against the Patriot Act so that he could bring it back to the floor as Majority Leader in a procedural move which is why I didn't include him with the other three worthless "so-called" Republicans.
Your reply to B4 was spot-on. Great job. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. These people need to figure out where they stand. Do they fear Al Qaeda or do they fear their own government more. Our government isn't perfect and reasons for mistrust are numerous. But they aren't out to kill me and my family. Al Qaeda is.
The administration did go to the FISA courts after the fact on some of these wiretaps and present to them certification of the need for the immediate wiretaps. See the piece below from the National Review Online...
December 19, 2005, 8:59 a.m.
Unwarranted Outrage
The Times blew our cover.
I have no doubt that revelations in the New York Times that the NSA has been conducting selective and limited surveillance of terrorist communications crossing into or out of the United States will be immensely valuable to our enemies. I also have no doubt that these and similar actions can be legal, even when conducted without warrants.
How could that be? From the sound and fury of the last few days from politicians and pundits, you would think this is a development as scandalous as Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy's authorization to wiretap Martin Luther King Jr. But the legality of the acts can be demonstrated with a look through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). For example, check out section 1802, "Electronic Surveillance Authorization Without Court Order." It is most instructive. There you will learn that "Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year" (emphasis mine).
Naturally, there are conditions. For example, the surveillance must be aimed at "the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers." Wait, is a terrorist group considered a foreign power? Yes, as defined in section 1801, subsection (a), "foreign power" can mean "a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore," though the statue language would explicitly apply to "a faction of a foreign nation or nations."
But isn't international terrorism that which takes place abroad, as opposed to homegrown domestic terrorism? Not exactly: Section 1801 subsection (c) defines international terrorism as, among other things, terrorist actions that "occur totally outside the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum." So if you are hiding, making plans, facilitating, attacking, or intending to spread fear inside the US, and have a link abroad, you are an international terrorist. Quite sensible.
O.K. fine, but what about the condition that there be "no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party?" Doesn't that necessarily cut out any and all communication that is domestic in origin or destination? Well, not quite. Return to section 1801, subsection (i): "United States person," which includes citizens, legal aliens, and businesses, explicitly "does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power."
Well sure, but does that mean that even if you are a citizen you cash in your abovementioned rights by collaborating with terrorists? Yes you do. You have then become an "Agent of a foreign power" as defined under subsection (b)(2)(C). Such agents include anyone who "knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power," and even includes those who aid and abet or knowingly conspire with those engaged in such behavior.
Wait, that includes anyone, even citizens? Yes — subsection (b)(1) is the part that applies to foreigners; (b)(2) covers everybody. And the whole point of the act is to collect "foreign intelligence information," which is defined under section 1801 subsection (e)(1)(B) as "information that relates to, and if concerning a United States person is necessary to, the ability of the United States to protect against sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."
Whoa, you say, that is way too much power for the president to wield without checks and balances! Well, true, and since Congress wrote this law, they included reporting requirements. The attorney general must report to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 30 days prior to the surveillance, except in cases of emergency, when he must report immediately. He must furthermore "fully inform" those committees on a semiannual basis thereafter, per section 1808 subsection (a). He must also send a copy of the surveillance authorization under seal to the so-called FISA Court as established in section 1803; not for a warrant, but to remain under seal unless certification is necessary under future court actions from aggrieved parties under section 1806 (f).
This is significant, because it means that some of the same politicians who have been charging abuse of power may also have been briefed on what was going on long ago. The White House should get ahead of the story by noting which congressmen were informed of these activities, instead of allowing them to grandstand so shamelessly. It would also help if the White House released some information on how the surveillance has helped keep the country safe. What attacks were disrupted, what terrorists were taken down, how many people saved? A few declassified examples would be very useful to ground the discussion in reality rather than rhetoric.
So how do the revelations in the Times help the terrorists? Think it through — if you were a terrorist and you believed (as most people seem to) that the NSA would ignore your communications if they crossed U.S. borders, your best move would be to set up communications relay stations inside the U.S. Terrorists are well known for their ability to find and exploit loopholes in our laws, and this would be a natural. For all we know our intelligence agencies have been exploiting these types of communications for years without the terrorists knowing it. Now they will fall silent, because now the bad guys know better. So New York Times writer James Risen will sell his book, the Times will increase circulation, politicians will beat their breasts and send out fundraising letters, and who will pay in the end?
You can answer that one.
— James S. Robbins is senior fellow in national-security affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council, a trustee for the Leaders for Liberty Foundation, and an NRO contributor.
* * *
They did get Judaical Approval. Read Newsmax. They have the facts. They also site case law that nukes the whole argument being advanced by the DNC directed Media. The problem is the professional Liars of the Dinosaur Media are, once again, deliberately misreporting the facts and once again Freeper take their nonsense seriously
How many lies and false reports do Freepers, who SHOULD know better, have to hear before they quite putting this unreasonable faith in the Dinosaur media's accuracy or intellectual honesty? How many lies do you have to hear before you quit trusting them. All the false reports about Bush on 9-11. The repeated errors in their coverage of Afghanistan. Their inability to this day to get Iraq right. We can start with their "the army is bogged down and cut off in Iraq" reports of March 2003. Their completely fraudulent reporting on Abu Graibe, Rathergate, the Swift Boat Vets, Downing Street Memo, Flush the Koran gate, Gitmo, Katerina etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. What is it going to take for people to start being at least SOME what cynical about what the Failed Media reports instead of assuming their must be SOME truth to their lies? They have become the enemy every bit as much as Al Qeda. Time Freepers learn to treat them that way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.